#Indian gdp per capita

[acquisory]

INDIA’S INDEBTEDNESS REACHING AN INFLECTION POINT — IS THERE A SILVER LINING

India has consistently maintained a stable Debt : GDP at ~70% over the past decade. With real GDP growth rate hovering around 6.5% between 1991 to 2013, India has successfully lifted millions of people from extreme poverty and has grown its real GDP per capita by over 4X during that period. Over the years, India has made astonishing progress in many areas including Education enrollment, Infant mortality, access to clean water and sanitation and has achieved the millennium development goal of halving poverty by 2015 from 1991 level.

Government should spend, but how? Despite concerns about the economy and growing debt levels, a possible silver lining exists for India. The country’s overall external debt increased from USD 345.8 Bn in 2012 to USD 558.5 Bn today. However, India also increased the share of INR denominated external debt from 21.4% in 2012 to 31.9% in 2020. A higher proportion of debt denominated in INR helps India mitigate its forex risk.  Also, India is blessed with record high foreign exchange reserves which are sufficient to meet any current external debt obligations. Sustainable external debt levels largely depend on the…

Read More: https://www.acquisory.com/ArticleDetails/81/India%E2%80%99s-Indebtedness-Reaching-An-Inflection-Point-%E2%80%93-Is-There-A-Silver-Lining

[mitigatedchaos]

The Floating Causation of Vulgar Anti-Racism

Post for August 12, 2024 ~7,400 words, 36 minutes

-★-

The late 20th century and the early 21st century were an excellent time for 'catch-up' development in under-developed countries. For example, the GDP per capita of the People's Republic of China rose from $312 in 1980, to $12,720 in 2022, more than a 40x increase. This is despite the People's Republic being nominally communist, 92% Han Chinese, and one of the largest potential geopolitical rivals to the United States. This is not a one-off – exports from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to the United States rose from $50 million in 1994 to $114 billion in 2023.

While the ideologically liberal government of the United States did invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and placed strict limits on Iran, in practical terms, the United States was willing to direct hundreds of billions of dollars of demand, for everything from disposable gloves to rice cookers, to countries that were neither majority white nor, officially, capitalist, which allowed these countries to build up their industrial base.

Inside the United States, as of the early 2020s, Americans of Indian descent, Americans of Asian descent, and a number of other non-white groups are outperforming the median household income of white Americans. It's not uncommon to see an Indian-American as the CEO of a major US corporation, such as Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Google's Sundar Pichai, or IBM's Arvind Krishna. And while Americans of Nigerian descent aren't earning quite as much money as Sundar Pichai, they are doing better than the U.S. national average. [1]

The American economy is willing to award non-white Americans and non-white immigrants with average pay higher than that the average pay for white Americans, and American society is willing to award members of these same groups with highly prestigious positions – Google is one of the most famous American companies, and to be its CEO is highly prestigious indeed.

Why is it that vulgar anti-racists aren't content to leave well enough alone on negative racial messaging, and take advantage of this opportunity to focus on personal development, ingroup development, and national development? Why is it that they have a strange totalitarian bent, such as Ibram Kendi proposing to give veto power over all government policy to a body of unappointed race experts, which would de facto end democracy?

Last month, @max1461 wrote a post, attempting to find a balanced compromise between the social justice movement and its critics in the discourses on racism over the past 10 years. Perhaps this was intended to close the books and allow the participants to move to a saner footing going forward. Subsequently, Max flagged the post as unrebloggable in order to prevent it from being beat up like a piñata. Near the end of the initial chain, Max wrote:

I can’t stress enough that, for all the excesses of DEI seminars and modern anti-racist academia and whatnot, for however unhelpful or even regressive these things may often be, what they exist in response to is fundamentally a horror of an entirely different and incomparable scale; something unspeakably evil and destructive. And, after 200 years of such an evil world order, which only really began to melt in 1945, I think it would be incredibly naive to believe that all the wounds are now healed.

It would seem that for the most part, the wounds that Japan suffered from America in World War II have already healed. The country already went through reindustrialization, followed by a boom period (which startled Westerners), and then a subsequent crash and the 'lost decade' of the 1990s. The Japanese have a favorable view of the United States, as perhaps they should – Japan has prospered in the Post-WW2 international order, in which they can simply purchase whatever materials they need on global markets with no need to invade or occupy anyone.

Yet for others, the past lingers on.

Ibram Kendi is one of the most famous contemporary self-identified anti-racists, a New York Times bestselling author (his most famous book was titled "How to Be an Anti-Racist") who was not only platformed by major corporations such as Microsoft (in 2020, an advertisement on the login screen of Windows 10 computers linked to a search for "anti-racism books," with his at the top), but even received funding for his own anti-racism center (now under attack for its ineffectiveness).

At one time, Ibram Kendi thought that white people were aliens. A roommate talked him out of it, asking how it was that white people could have children with everyone else if that were the case. To his credit, Kendi did change his mind.

...but how could anyone have come up with Kendi's conclusion in the first place?

In school in the United States, children are taught that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs. It is true that Spanish military forces brought about the downfall of the Aztec Empire, but often people forget the details of what they learned in school, and often what they learn in school is itself a simplified story, designed to be told to children. Encyclopedia Britannica's summary of the Battle of Tenochtitlan largely agrees with the gist of Wikipedia's more detailed article on the Fall of Tenochtitlan, which is littered with instances of "[citation needed]."

Wikipedia, however, provides more numbers. In particular, Wikipedia's version provides one of the Internet's favorite parts of wiki battle articles, a listing of the balance of opposed forces (with citations):

There is a racist narrative of the conquest of the Americas in which the brave Spanish explorers overcame the savage, human-sacrificing hordes of the Aztecs. There is an inverted, anti-racist narrative of the conquest of the Americas in which the powerful, cruel Spanish showed up to oppress the weak, innocent Aztecs.

And then there is a third narrative - a narrative that politics happened. A number of tributary states had grievances with the Aztecs, and the small number of Spanish probably didn't seem like enough to conquer the whole territory from the perspective of the tributaries, but did seem powerful enough to rally around to fight the Aztecs and win.

Nobody comes out looking good in this third narrative. The Spanish brought about a brutal war with tens of thousands of casualties, and devastating disease followed their arrival. The Aztecs and tributaries combined failed to overcome a foreign invasion due to (relative to the foreigners being from another continent) local infighting. The Aztecs were awful enough that a number of tributaries sided with an army of foreigners against them.

Now, suppose that we delete the 200,000 native allies from the balance of forces above, but still record a victory for the Spanish. The effect of the native allies remains, but the cause of that effect disappears. This creates an effect without a cause – unattributed causation, which is disconnected from what came before, or what we might call, "floating causation."

Some might call overcoming a force of 80,000 with only 1,000 or so men a miracle. For those not so inclined, the 'floating' causation gets attributed to the Spanish soldiers – their equipment, their valor, their tactics, and their discipline. Each of a thousand Spanish infantrymen is now somehow worth 200 native warriors.

In this cartoon version of history, the Spanish are an unstoppable psychic warrior race. Their steadfast will in the face of danger and their unit cohesion are quite nearly inhuman, and their technological advantage is overwhelming. The natives have not merely made a political miscalculation similar to others of the pre-modern era, such as the decisions of states facing Genghis Khan, but are buffoons to the slaughter, incapable of putting up any real defense.

In this cartoon, the Spanish can go anywhere. They can do anything. And because of this, they are the only people with agency in the whole world.

They sound... like aliens.

Trying to rebalance this cartoon only leads to greater absurdities, such as the idea that only Europeans ever meaningfully engaged in conquest (contradicted by Genghis Khan), or that industrial technology and its resulting pollution are "European" in nature (China has been quite aggressive about industrializing), or that only "European" countries waged modern and industrialized wars of conquest (the Empire of Japan used guns, bombs, and tanks as part of its project to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere).

All three of the above counter-examples are from Asia, which is usually conspicuously absent from self-identified anti-racist thinking, but none of them are obscure.

-★-

It is my belief that floating causation is a source of distortions across the ideological spectrum.

Ideology is not independent from human beings. Manifestos, one might say, do not print themselves. From the other direction, it is not a piece of paper which murders somebody – it is a human being who pulls the trigger.

There is ideology, which is a system of related rules and beliefs, and there are adherents who adopt ideology, spread beliefs, and put ideological rules into practice.

An ideology can contain taboos which prohibit noticing or explaining the true cause of some outcome, separating the cause from its effect. Practitioners can then attribute that effect to a preferred ideological construct instead, making it seem much more powerful, and often dangerous, than it really is.

The Elephants

Imagine (as this example is entirely made-up) that there is some village in which elephants are considered sacred, but the elephants in the area have a habit of trampling crops in the night. To avoid loss of face, the damage to crops is attributed to "bandits" by an initial group of elders. The young children who do not know better are then taught this explanation. Later, after the death of the elders, the initial truth is lost. Anyone claiming to have seen elephants trampling the fields is denounced as choosing the vile bandits over the virtuous elephants. An outsider who did not realize what was happening might be quite impressed to hear that a bandit in the region ruined a dozen fields in a single night, and assume that the bandit has tremendous physical stamina.

But floating causation is not necessarily the result of an ideological taboo. Someone may be ignorant about the cause of an effect, unable to understand the process by which an effect came about, have powerful emotions about the topic which they are unwilling to confront or may not even be aware of, or may simply have poor judgment. An adherent may be drawn to an ideology for these reasons.

Continuing with our example, a fresh-off-the-boat colonial administrator arriving at the village might be unaware that elephants exist, or trample crops, and conclude that there were ongoing feuds driven by animosity among the villagers, with bandits as the cover-story. Alternatively, the new colonial administrator might love the elephants and hate the villagers, and be unwilling to consider the possibility that the elephants are trampling the crops, including cooking up rather elaborate rationalizations.

Ideology

Issues with not understanding a process are more likely to come up with things like economics – occasionally a worker will post a video to social media complaining that he is not paid the full value of the items he sells or creates, ignoring all the money that went into the construction of the facility, the work from other workers putting together the input materials, and so on.

Liberals in the late 00s and early 2010s had an interest in memetics, which concerns the replication and spread of ideas. (This field is where the term "Internet meme" comes from.) Then, as now, they had a tendency to treat people as too similar to each other, and some of them leaned towards the idea that any person could hold any ideology. Ideologies do (in my judgment) influence behavior – there are far fewer monarchists around these days, and far fewer monarchs with real power, for example ��� but how a set of beliefs is expressed depend on the emotions, motives, and temperament of the person who holds those beliefs.

So do people choose ideologies, or do ideologies choose people?

One way to view this matter is as a cycle. Someone's social environment is partly a matter of choice, and partly a matter of circumstance. The ideologies that show up in someone's environment are generally going to be ones that spread (as ideologies that don't attract new adherents will die out), but which ideology someone actually chooses and how they practice it will be influenced by what type of person they are.

Another way to view this matter is that emotions, motives, temperament, and beliefs are all things that make certain actions or thoughts either easier (and cheaper) or more difficult (and more expensive). A drug addict who believes in hard work and free market capitalism, but finds himself stealing to feed his habit, may find that the influence of his beliefs is not enough to overcome his addiction. (He is likely to feel miserable.) However, when a religious person is choosing what time of day, or day of the week, to worship, the explicit belief of their religion is likely to have a great deal of influence.

Yet another way to view this matter is to treat things like social relations, ideology, and temperament as interacting layers, and then propose that politics spans multiple layers.

Human Talent

I don't believe that all human beings are equally talented, and I don't believe that they all have identical temperaments. Therefore, one of my beliefs is what might be called the "human capital theory of movements." Ideologies consist of networks of related beliefs which can be used to interpret the world, to guide behavior, or to create arguments. But ideologies do not create beliefs or arguments themselves. Humans do.

When a movement has a lot of talented, virtuous people working for it, these people can create new arguments in order to win debates, and change parts of the ideology, the network of beliefs, to adapt the network to changes in conditions. Without talented people, the ideology of a movement will drift farther from environmental conditions, causing its responses to become more misaligned with conditions on the ground.

Talented people are also needed for the implementation of an ideology. An ideological book is just an inert text. No matter how complex it may be, it is fundamentally limited in its complexity. Applying that text in the environment, bridging the gap between what the text says and what that means in the reality of a specific situation, requires both intelligence and good judgment. Not every person is equally talented, and not every person is equally informed. If someone more talented and with better judgment is around, they can read the situation and come up with some simpler rules or orders for others to follow.

The less talented the adherents of a movement are, the lower the ability of the movement to adapt to conditions over both the short-term and the long-term.

A shift in the distribution of talent can precede other forms of political change. Ideologues may smile as the most disagreeable members are driven out of their movement, but at the same time, the lack of criticism will reduce the movement's ability to respond to change.

There are trade-offs. The use of floating causation may make an ideology less aligned with reality, but it may also be useful for the movement to stoke the emotions of their followers in order to drive action. (This emotional motivation bit is why every election in the United States is "the most important in your lifetime.")

-★-

Beliefs are not intelligence. Nonetheless, a person with a belief may act as though they are smarter (or even wiser) than they actually are. This is just the nature of knowledge (as cached intelligence, wisdom, and observation).

I developed the talent theory in the prior section by observing opposition to racism in the United States prior to 2014. In the United States between 2000 and 2014, there was substantial support for individualist "colorblindness," while at the same time, there was immense social pressure against overt white racial organizing.

Racial organizing takes time and effort. Because white Americans were not subject to racial discrimination, they could simply go out into the market and earn what their work was worth. For talented white Americans, the gains from white racial organizing would be marginal, so the penalties could easily overcome those gains. The less talented would have the most to gain due to the ability to reduce the amount of economic competition they would be up against, but they were also less able to organize. [2]

There was somewhere famous for white racial organizing in the US during this era: prisons.

Racial prison gangs have been particularly noted in the California prison system. Prison gangs offer inmates a credible threat of retaliation if the inmate is harmed, so every inmate has an incentive to join one, and the bigger the gang the better that threat of retaliation is, so every gang has an incentive to recruit. If you're a gang member and a new guy comes in and starts causing trouble, and you don't want to escalate (and thus risk extra charges for your guys or reduced privileges), what are you to do? You would prefer to negotiate with someone that has leverage on him. Race is very visible, even if inmates move around between prisons, so if all inmates get sorted into gangs by race, then someone is responsible for this guy, and by talking to the right people, you can make sure he knows it. (If the troublemaker still doesn't respond, and his own gang cut him loose, then you can punish him without fear of retaliation from other inmates.)

Different incentives produce different results.

Four Options

Glenn Loury is a black man, and an economist at Brown University. He views himself as an American and therefore an inheritor of human rights philosophy of the American founders and their English forebears. He has his own show on YouTube in which he regularly discusses matters with John McWhorter, another black man, who is a linguistics professor at Columbia University. (John strikes me as more liberal, and I heard that he was frightened of Donald Trump, a sentiment shared by many white American culturally liberal Democrats.) Both of these men are quite smart, and if you watch the show, you'll see them easily consider arguments from various perspectives and toss hypotheticals back and forth.

Neither of these men are vulgar anti-racists.

Roland Fryer is a black man, and is an economist at Harvard (although he was suspended for 2 years) who I have discussed previously. He thinks like an economist, and has conducted studies such as paying children to read books. In previous appearances, it seemed that he believes that education gaps can be closed through extremely rigorous selection of teachers and other methods.

Mr. Fryer does not appear to be a vulgar anti-racist.

These men are all relatively prominent voices. If you go looking for the sort of content they produce, they aren't that hard to find. And they're all smart. They might have disagreements with each other and with some of my readers, but smart people can disagree.

However, during the 2014-2022 era, when it was decided to push a black academic to prominence, political forces settled on Ibram Kendi instead. There must have been dozens of other candidates.

When I think about why that happened, I suspect that the answer is that while the first three men care about the interests of black Americans, all three of them are willing to say, "No." Although I doubt they would phrase it in exactly these terms, I suspect that all three understand human rights as rooted in high-order consequences, limits on information, and human bias.

If you proposed to John McWhorter that we should give veto power to a committee of unelected race experts, he would immediately recognize the problem with just that.

Why Vulgar Anti-Racism?

With all of that said, I believe we can think about vulgar anti-racism by means of comparison.

a. Economics

Loury and Fryer are both economists. They know about gains from trade, prices as a distributed form of economic planning, property rights as enabling investment, specialization of labor, economies of scale, and dozens of other things. They understand where wealth comes from.

The typical vulgar anti-racist that you will encounter on an Internet discussion board has little knowledge of economics, and tends to think of total production as fixed. From their perspective, if someone has more resources than another person, it has nothing to do with production, and is purely the result of hoarding.

The typical vulgar anti-racist also doesn't think in terms of entropy, the tendency of things to break down over time. They tend not to discount temporally-distant advantages. (If a well was built 400 years ago, they treat that advantage as retained today.) They tend to think of capital as fixed and not as something that is constantly being rebuilt and adjusted. They don't understand that the ability to create new capital is generally more important than the initial capital in the long-run.

Thinking about production is probably why we see Fryer focused on educational gains. His theory is likely that if the children have a good base of education, they'll be able to produce more, avoid losses, overcome entropy, and net accumulate wealth. If they don't have a good base of education, then they'll be less productive, and entropy will eat a higher percentage of their earnings, leading to reduced wealth.

If someone doesn't know economics, then the wealth of developed countries is "unexplained," and so are the motives of many people within developed countries.

b. History

I don't know about Fryer specifically, but Loury and McWhorter seem to have a good grasp of history.

A solid understanding of history leads to seeing actions as emerging from their historical contexts. This places a limit on the range of expected behavior.

For example, for most of history up until about the 1900s, the child mortality rate was about 50%. That example is relevant for feminism, as under such brutal conditions, we would expect any society that didn't push for women to have at least 4 children to die out. Gender-based oppression didn't occur for no reason, or because of pure male greed, but was influenced by material circumstances.

If we run this understanding backwards, it follows that 1700s or earlier gender norms would be unlikely to return without 1700s or earlier child mortality rates.

Likewise, some basic historical knowledge would reveal that wars of conquest have happened pretty much everywhere, so it's quite unlikely that Europeans are uniquely conquerors. You end up having to declare everything from feuding Chinese kingdoms, to the Māori, to chimpanzees, be "European" in order to fit the model.

The typical vulgar anti-racist's position is, implicitly, "Everyone lived together in peace and harmony, until one day, for no reason at all, the Europeans became possessed by the spirit of greed, and attacked."

If someone somehow doesn't know that war existed outside of Europe prior to 1492, then the wars of colonialism are "unexplained," and so are the motives of the people who fought them.

When vulgar anti-racists do research history, they generally focus on collecting racial grievances in order to build up a case that the group they favor are poor, oppressed, not responsible for anything bad their group has ever done, and are owed indefinite benefits for incalculable harms. They don't proceed from the idea of, "How does this work?" They don't, say, look at the tremendous economic success of South Korea, and ask, "Based on how South Korea obtained their wealth, how can our group achieve such riches?" (They don't even look at South Korea's birthrate and ask how they can avoid such a fate!)

Even before World War 2, Japan did look afar to ask how they could become rich. That kind of mentality is part of how they were able to become a developed country (who could threaten other people with tanks) in the first place.

Looking to Asia is useful for people making comparisons to figure out how things work, but is not useful for collecting racial grievances in order to build up racial claims to make demands. That's why vulgar anti-racists often don't know basic facts about Asian history, like that state testing to determine government positions was practiced in ancient China. [3]

c. Racial Attachment

Even during the individualist colorblindness of 2000-2014, there were still white Americans with some talent engaged in racial organizing. In general, these were people to whom race was very important, and thus who were out-of-step with the mainstream of white America.

It's my opinion that there is a natural range of tribalism among human beings. Sometimes, the rival tribe on the other side of the mountain just want to trade. Other times, they really are out to kill you. The trait doesn't disappear, because wars still happen, and even if they didn't happen, someone could just reinvent war and start it all back up again.

In my view, this tribalism trait isn't attached to race specifically. It can attach to religion. It can attach to sex. Some of the rhetoric from radical feminists sounds the same as rhetoric from hardcore ethnic nationalists – or at least it would, if we treated men as an ethnicity. In our modern environment in which race is highly legible due to intercontinental travel, for a lot of people, it gets attached to race.

Rather than assigning people a single number on a scale from "moral" to "immoral," it's probably better to think of people as having virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses.

Some level of racial attachment itself is not inherently evil. Based on his research topics, for example, Roland Fryer seems interested in bringing about the success of people with a similar background to himself. His virtue (his interest in truth) and his strength (his intelligence) convert that attachment into something that's beneficial to society.

High levels of racial attachment fly much closer to the wire. A highly racially attached individual might do good work in other domains, but there's a risk that they'll end up routing too much of their sense of self-worth through their race, and become obsessed with guarding their race's self-perceived reputation. For such a person, any information deemed unflattering to the group may be interpreted as an attack on himself (or herself).

The Mayo Clinic (a network of hospitals in the United States) describes narcissism as:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.

A number of users on Twitter (now known as X.com) began using the term "ethnic narcissism" to describe this sort of disordered thinking when done on behalf of a racial or ethnic group rather than oneself specifically.

2019 and 2020 were banner years for platforming this sort of behavior, with the nation's leading newspaper arguing, in its own words, that we should make the suffering of a particular racial group the core narrative of American history, that everyone should define their identities around:

The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

Obsession with self-perceived ethnic reputation is part of what leads to the "rebalancing the cartoon" behavior I discussed earlier:

Trying to rebalance this cartoon only leads to greater absurdities, such as the idea that only Europeans ever meaningfully engaged in conquest (contradicted by Genghis Khan), or that industrial technology and its resulting pollution are "European" in nature (China has been quite aggressive about industrializing), or that only "European" countries waged modern and industrialized wars of conquest (the Empire of Japan used guns, bombs, and tanks as part of its project to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere).

How does someone end up so ignorant that they don't know that Genghis Khan existed? By being the kind of person that doesn't want to know that Genghis Khan existed. They don't look it up. If you tell them, they either forget or they take a conflict theorist approach and think that it's some sort of trick.

Unfortunately, while a fairly accurate description of the behavior at issue, the term "ethnic narcissism" can also be used as an attack by ethnic narcissists themselves, as well as people engaged in ethnic conflict. This makes it of limited utility in practice.

The Mysterious Anglo

Option #1: In general, the right wing would consider the vulgar anti-racists to be liars working to selfishly advance their own personal interests and those of their preferred groups. Left-wingers would tend to take a negative view of this, as they believe that right-wingers are unjustly dismissive in order to 'protect the unearned and unquestioned advantages of the privileged.'

In this version, vulgar anti-racists won't drop the issue and hit the GDP gym because they're bullies who think the particular groups they dislike are easy targets. The appropriate response is to become a harder target by systematically defunding any institution that supports them, putting them on the same footing as conventional racial supremacists in the US.

I tend to agree that many of the vulgar anti-racists are just being selfish. There is a question of just how consciously aware of it they are, however.

Option #2: A left-wing view would be that the vulgar anti-racists are "good people, just a bit misguided." Right-wingers tend to take a negative view of this, because if a right-winger published a book titled "Black Fragility" that was as circular in its reasoning as the "White Fragility" of Robin DiAngelo appeared to be, he would be hounded as a racist.

In this version, vulgar anti-racists just need patient guidance to put their empathy back on the right track.

I tend to believe that a good chunk of the vulgar anti-racists are just low-tier progressives who get their opinions socially. If the social consensus changes among progressives, they'll forget ever fretting about "microaggressions." Arguing with them individually mostly won't work, though, because it doesn't override their social consensus, and it won't make them think harder about the issues.

Many left-wingers would disagree with me on this assessment.

Option #3: A more centrist view would be that vulgar anti-racists are a mix of people with excessively high racial attachment, enthusiastic people who are underinformed, and people who serve their niche of the information and political economy, and that this isn't that different from the lower quality wings of other left and right political movements (look how bad "degrowth" is, for example), except that race feels much more core to people's identities (it's certainly not easy to change one's race), so it evokes more powerful emotions. A centrist would likely say that there are more academically and philosophically serious opponents of racism out there, but because the things they say are more serious, they're less controversial, so they get less coverage. ("You wouldn't expect a textbook in the Sunday paper.")

A person with this perspective would say that the appropriate course of action is mostly just to wait for it to blow over.

I would disagree. If vulgar anti-racism is taught in schools for a generation, it would create an expectation that racial blame is the default course of action. This would create a situation which is much more favorable for racial conflict, so it should be shut down now to prevent that from happening.

However, I feel that this does not adequately explain the totalitarian bent. What about other values society might have? What about trade-offs? [4] I would like to throw a fourth possibility into the ring.

Option #4: Life inside the vulgar anti-racist worldview is anxiety-inducing and subtly terrifying.

I don't fully endorse this view, because I think that vulgar anti-racism is a coalition of multiple groups (see the previous three options).

However, while I learned from school that racism and ethnic conflict are extremely dangerous in general (e.g. they can boil over and result in mass murder), the susceptibility of vulgar anti-racists to, "It's impossible to be racist to white people," which is very obviously racist, strongly implies that what they learned was, "Jews good; Germans bad" – basically just a list of which groups are acceptable, and which groups aren't. [5]

I reverse-engineered a sophisticated moral worldview, and when I was young, I assumed that everyone else had done so, too. And for a little while, society approximated that view closely enough for that misconception to kind-of work.

I think that a significant number of people in the vulgar anti-racist coalition don't understand white people.

In terms of anxiety, a number of them seem to think that Europeans and their descendants think about race as much as the vulgar anti-racists do – that they are silently passing judgment, or saying nasty things when others are not listening.

I've been around middle-class and above white Americans my entire life. I've seen some kids make stupid racist jokes, and I can imagine bullying targeting race if it looks like an axis of vulnerability, but in general, among themselves, they don't talk about race much at all.

A skeptic reading this may say that that's just anecdotal. However, according to surveys, "white conservatives" have about the same "racial/ethnic" "ingroup favorability" as either "hispanic moderates" or "asians." "White liberals" were the only group on the chart to have a "pro-outgroup bias."

If we interpret these ingroup favorability measures as racism (which is a stretch, because a favorability measure is not itself a discriminatory policy), then white conservatives have a "normal" (as in typical of most groups) amount of racism. White liberals (probably in the sense that the label "liberal" is used for the entire left in the US) are the only ones who loop around into what might be called "anti-racism." (Razib Khan has his doubts about the stability of this arrangement of anti-racism as opposed to non-racism.)

A vulgar anti-racist doesn't know this, and doesn't want to know this.

Now, for the "subtly terrifying" part. If someone accepts, for instance, that the British were sincere in sending warships to intercept slave traders, then there are all sorts of explanations that they can come up with for that behavior, such as it being a natural result of industrialization, or maybe a result of rising literacy, or motivated by Christianity in combination with previous political developments in England, and so on.

From Wikipedia, here's a map of the British Empire, a map of the Spanish Empire, and a map of the Portuguese Empire. While from the perspective of Europeans at the time, the European states were in competition with each other, if taken together as a group, they were closer to achieving true world conquest than anyone else in history. (Sure, the Mongol Empire was huge, but they didn't make it over to the Americas.)

If someone believes that the Europeans turned off the slave trade for some sincere or enduring reason, then the 1700s are unlikely to come back. If someone believes that the Europeans turned off the 1700s for no reason, or for a secret reason, then one day, they could just... turn the 1700s back on.

And maybe that thought isn't entirely conscious. Maybe it just sits quietly, at the back of the mind.

And they get stuck, much like people who are still focused on "overpopulation" as birthrates plummet in industrialized countries throughout the world.

-★-

Whether they consciously intend to or not, vulgar anti-racists leverage social taboos to make it difficult to argue for one group's innocence without making another, generally more vulnerable, group, look worse. People don't want to be mean and say mean things about a vulnerable group. Vulgar anti-racists exploit this. (This kind of behavior is immoral, but I'm not sure how much vulgar anti-racists consciously understand that.)

Online Tactics

I've developed tactics to argue with them in online space, but I haven't tried them out in in-person institutional spaces where they have institutional influence (power).

In general, you cannot argue with vulgar anti-racists grievance-for-grievance. Building up an ammunition depot of racial or ethnic grievances on behalf of "overperforming" groups won't work – vulgar anti-racists will dismiss you as irrationally motivated by racial hatred and dismiss your entire collection, and normal people will also think it's weird (even though they still don't think many racial or ethnic minorities collecting grievances is weird). [6]

A better approach is to pick one or two grievances to shut down the idea that the group you're defending are "invulnerable." Morally, you shouldn't have to point to, say, children or minors being mass victimized, because it should be obvious that people of any race can be victimized. But that's just the world we live in.

Collect examples of institutional policy, such as by governments, corporations, or universities, that is racially discriminatory against the group you're defending, in order to show that the intent of vulgar anti-racists is racial discrimination. Use center-left, mainstream sources to prevent dismissals. The goal is not to show major harms; most Democrats who are not social justice critical will initially attempt to deny that racial discrimination is a goal of vulgar anti-racism.

(If necessary, it can be emphasized that not wanting to be racially discriminated against is a normal thing to want.)

Vulgar anti-racists will try to shut you down by reciting their list of grievances. Memorizing racial grievances is something that they are strong at. Redirect the conversation to where they are weak: demand that they show whatever policy it is that they want will actually improve things and permanently close racial outcome gaps.

If you find someone who has memorized a list of successful academic or nutrition interventions, you've likely found a philosophical liberal. In my experience, almost no vulgar anti-racist has any even modestly-successful intervention memorized. If they propose an intervention, demand evidence that it will work.

It's possible that they could propose something scientific, but science is undergoing a replication crisis, and 'race scholars' have come under fire for scientific misconduct. If a vulgar anti-racist does come up with something, the next step is to get a binding commitment to close the racial claims against their target group.

If their political leaders will not agree, in writing, with binding mechanisms (and punishments with teeth if they don't follow through), to close out the racial claims against their target groups, conditional on some social intervention going into effect, then they don't believe that the intervention will work.

A working intervention is win-win. Outcomes improve, and the odds of conflict (over this particular issue) decrease.

IRL Tactics

X user CantonaCorona must live somewhere very different from me, because I never hear vulgar anti-racism from people in real life. His advice?

100%. I can’t even tell you the number of times I’ve been in a friendly/polite mutual friend gathering, and someone who knows 10% of the room will add “gawd, white people, gross” etc.

The issue is they are also the person lacking social skills to see the room gets uncomfortable

In 2023ish I started responding by asking them very honest seeming questions and leading them into saying really crazy stuff.

Takes a lot of finesse to not sound like a schizo, but if you can pretend to be genuinely curious it works wonders and someone else will call them out

It does, indeed, take a lot of finesse, even online. Because vulgar anti-racists are exploiting taboos, they have a huge terrain advantage in most encounters due to normal people not wanting to touch reputationally-damaging information. Successfully navigating the situation without sounding "schizo," and without sounding cruel, is difficult.

The advantage of the tactics discussed above are that you don't have to attack the reputation of the vulnerable group that vulgar anti-racists are using to justify their own bad behavior. It isn't surprising that, like a successful hostage rescue, it requires being more careful than the hostage-takers.

"Corrective" racial discrimination that does not permanently close racial outcome gaps is not actually a correction, it's just extra harm for no reason, and the motives of people who support it are suspect.

Demobilization

While the online tactics I've discussed above are reasonably effective for an online debate or argument format (and vulgar anti-racists are increasingly retreating to protected contexts where they don't have to engage in open debate), the long-term goal needs to be demobilization. Ethnic conflict interferes with stability and good government.

There are some supporters that don't recognize the logical errors in their positioning, but they can sense, "Wait, this guy isn't like the others," and flee rather than risk being split off from the social approval of their group.

I propose the fear theory for the potential to develop new angles. If the real motivation is fear, then addressing most of the intermediate arguments won't work, as the intermediate arguments are just products of the fear.

Reportedly, black musician Daryl Davis demobilized many Klansmen just by befriending them. [7] I suspect that most vulgar anti-racists already know a number of white people personally, so that tactic probably won't work here.

I have not conducted field experiments (either online or offline) on using the fear theory during encounters, so I can't provide solid information on its tactical use, yet.

-★★★-

[1] Stylistically, I have chosen to capitalize nationality while not capitalizing racial groups. On a quick reading, the tables provided by Wikipedia don't appear to disaggregate between first-generation immigrants, who have foreign nationality of origin and American citizenship, and second-generation immigrants who only have American nationality. All three CEOs listed were born in India.

[2] The ability to buy off competing talent is one of the reasons for the endurance of capitalism. Capitalist systems tend to be extremely productive. They can offer wages from increased productivity that are higher than the wages that other systems offer from rents.

[3] This is one of the reasons I got into writing about politics. It became common to find people whose professed opinions implied they'd never even heard of Genghis Khan, and at that point, I figured the bar was set pretty low.

[4] Positions on migration appear related, but I'll touch on that in another essay.

[5] One reason it wasn't obvious that people were just making an acceptable targets list at the time was that quite a few people from all over the world have a tendency to get wacky about Jewish people specifically, so putting antisemitism off-limits looked like it was backed by more sophisticated reasoning than it actually was. Obviously, people shouldn't hate Jewish people. The problem with the acceptable targets list approach is that it's fragile – since the list is based on social approval rather than deeper philosophical principles, it can end up being "readjusted" later.

[6] I also suspect that continuing to constantly expose yourself to the worst behavior of other groups may be corrosive. Watching a video where a man is shot on some other street, in some other city, may give you a jolt of adrenaline while you sit helplessly in your chair. Reading about atrocities may make you feel helpless and doomed.

[7] This behavior is morally praiseworthy, not morally obligatory.

[mapsontheweb]

Indian state's GDP Per Capita in US dollars(2024)

[rotationalsymmetry]

For instance, historical national accounts suggest that GDP per capita in the Spanish-occupied Philippines increased by over 15% between 1820 and 1902 (Bolt & van Zanden, 2020). Yet parish records indicate this was a period of increasing mortality, due to “a general deterioration of peasant livelihoods… a consequence of the rapid commercialization of peasant agriculture” (Smith, 1978, pp. 51-52). Similarly, Indian GDP per capita increased by 27% from 1870 to 1921 (Bolt & van Zanden, 2020). Yet during that time, British colonial policy induced serial famines that killed tens of millions of people, with life expectancy collapsing by 20%, “a deterioration in human health probably without precedent in the subcontinent’s long history of war and invasion” (Davis, 2002, p. 312).

Highlights

The common notion that extreme poverty is the “natural” condition of humanity and only declined with the rise of capitalism rests on income data that do not adequately capture access to essential goods.

Data on real wages suggests that, historically, extreme poverty was uncommon and arose primarily during periods of severe social and economic dislocation, particularly under colonialism.

The rise of capitalism from the long 16th century onward is associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality.

In parts of South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, wages and/or height have still not recovered.

Where progress has occurred, significant improvements in human welfare began only around the 20th century. These gains coincide with the rise of anti-colonial and socialist political movements.

Sullivan, D., & Hickel, J. (2023). Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century. World development, 161, 106026.

[ebelal56-blog]

Bangladesh Surpasses India's RICHEST State in Wealth!

Let's take a moment to dive into a fascinating comparison between two regions that share cultural ties but stand apart economically: Bangladesh and West Bengal. Now, you might be thinking, "Why should I care about the economies of two places that seem so similar yet so different?" Well, the answer is simple. Understanding their economic profiles not only sheds light on their current situations but also highlights the impact of governance, policy decisions, and even geography on their growth trajectories. First, let's talk about size. Bangladesh, a sovereign nation, boasts a nominal GDP of about $465 billion, making it the 37th largest economy in the world. That's impressive, right? With a population of around 170 million, the GDP per capita stands at about $2,900. Now, compare that to West Bengal, a state within India, which has a nominal GDP of approximately $235 billion and a population of around 100 million, leading to a GDP per capita of about $1,760. So, while Bangladesh has the edge in overall economic size, West Bengal is no small player either, being the sixth largest state economy in India. What's driving this growth? For Bangladesh, it's all about textiles and garments-these sectors account for a staggering 85% of their export earnings. The country has experienced sustained growth rates of around 6-7% annually over the past decade. On the other hand, West Bengal is also on a growth path, with rates hovering around 7-8%. However, its economy is more diversified, heavily relying on agriculture, industries like tea and jute, and a growing services sector. It's a bit of a mixed bag, but the challenge lies in the fact that West Bengal is lagging in industrialization compared to other Indian states. Now, let's dig deeper into the industries and exports of these regions. Bangladesh is a global leader in textiles, which not only employs millions but also brings in about $55 billion in export earnings. In contrast, West Bengal's major exports include tea-think of the famous Darjeeling tea-jute, leather, and handicrafts. Kolkata serves as a regional trade hub, yet it doesn't quite match the export-driven dynamism of Bangladesh. When it comes to agriculture, both regions showcase their strengths. Bangladesh relies heavily on crops like rice, jute, and fish, but faces challenges from climate change and natural disasters like floods. West Bengal, blessed with fertile soil, produces rice, tea, jute, and potatoes. But even here, challenges abound, especially with political interference affecting industrial policy and economic growth.

[amitjaiswals-blog]

Fresher Jobs in USA

USA has the biggest GDP at massive US $ 28,780,000,000,000. The projected real growth GDP for the year 2024 is 2.6 per cent and GDP per capita income stands to US $ 85,370. It builds an excellent career to the people.

Why People Should Go to USA

USA holds an extraordinary appeal to the people who are searching for jobs . It presents an attractive opportunity to the people who are looking for jobs.

A)    Career Opportunities: - Many entries type positions across various industries are provided to the people who are searching for jobs. It helps to develop skills to the people and helps in building the career.

B)   High earning potential: - Various salaries and benefits are excelled in USA.

C) Global Exposure: - People who are working at USA gets accessed with international market, global business practices and networking opportunities.

D)  Educational and technological hub: - In USA there are prestigious universities and tech companies which helps in promoting innovation and improving the professional development.

E)    Quality of life: - As USA has excellent healthcare, public services, and lifestyle so people can have ambitious standards for living in USA.

Top Career Opportunities in USA for Indians

Numerous opportunities are offered too the people who have come to study at USA. All students are protected against background, ethnicity, and gender. It also offers career opportunities to Indians. Indians can earn a salary of Rs 70,00,000 – Rs 1,20,00,000. People need to built certain skills so that their career can be established. If a person wants to become a software engineer must pursue a course at software engineering. If a person wants to work at finance should study course in finance and management.

Career occupation

Salary Earned

Data Scientists

Rs 67,00,000 – Rs 93,00,000

Engineers

Rs 64,00, 000 – Rs 74,00,000

Financial Officer

Rs 61,00,000- Rs 78,00,000

Business Development Manager

Rs 52,00,000- Rs 71,00,000

Digital Marketer

Rs 48,00,000- Rs 59,00,000

 

How Can Indians Earn Money Online

Indians who are graduates and freshers need to find the jobs which are suitable for them. Several things such visa, passport, which jobs are popular and which companies people like to work for are the things people should know when they are searching for jobs. In the job market of USA people find a job in the company where they can like their skills and experience . New graduates earn a salary for Rs 55,00,000 which depends on the which field they are working. People need to do some research work so they can meet new people and can change the applications of jobs for adding the information which the company may need which helps in finding the job required and can help in finding a new career.

 

Job Profile

Average salary earned in India

Average salary earned in USA

Customer Service Representative

Rs 54,00,000

Rs 34,70,000

Library Assistant

Rs 2,30,000

Rs 26,30,000

Content Writer

Rs3,60,000

Rs 51,61,000

Research assistants in science labs and tech labs

Rs2,20,000

Rs 32,40,000

Sales Executive

Rs 2,00,000

Rs 1,60,00,000

 

How can the person become eligible for job at USA

The academic requirements for working at USA differs from one university to another while some standards may need eligibility regardless of background.

Academic needed

Bachelor’s Requirements

Work experience

Proper work experience is needed

Language Proficiency

IELTS (6.0-6.5)

TOEFL (80-100)

PTE (50-65)

References

Both personal and professional

Visa

H1-B, H2, H3, L, O, P, Q visa

 

Apart from this people needs to get a sponsorship for the work visa. It helps in applying for the visa and helps in tolerating the costs involved in the process. The employer will support the people who are searching for jobs so that process will become much more convenient to them.

Top Recruiting Agencies for Indian Freshers

People should find right jobs so that their career should be settled in USA. Several recruiting agencies focuses in helping international candidates such as the Indians who have done their graduation recently and wants to work at USA. Several companies help the candidates so that they can get connected with potential employers, they help in assisting with the job applications, can get prepared with the interviews  and offer career guidance. They can match the skills with suitable openings and sometimes provide temporary or contract jobs so that people can have job experience.

Top job recruiting agencies in USA

a)     Robert Half is a well-known company which focuses on accounting, finance, and administrative roles.

b)    Kelly Services is a well-known company focuses on IT, healthcare, and engineering.

c)      Manpower Group is another well known company which offers wide range of industries from technology to finance.

d)    Ranstad USA: - It is well known company for freshers. It offers profile in IT, engineering, and healthcare.

e)     Aerotek: - It is a well-known company which provides jobs in engineering, management, and technology.

f)          TEK Systems: - It is a well-known company which provides job in IT profile for the people who have technical and software skills.

g)      Adecco USA: - It is a well-known company which offers profile at tech, manufacturing, and marketing.

Types of work visa at USA

1)     H- 1B Visa: - This type of visa is for foreigners who are working at occupations specially in bachelor’s degree . Indian IT experts and engineers use this type of visa.

2)     H-1B1 Visa: - This type of visa is used by the people who are working in Singapore and Chile.

3)     H-2A Visa: - This type of visa is used by the people who have opt for temporary work such as Indian agricultural workers perform agricultural work who had come to foreign country for work.

4)     H-2B Visa: - This type of visa is used by the people temporarily who are engaged in non agricultural activities and other industries such as hospitality and landscapes.

5)     H 3 Visa: - This type of visa for the person who has come to USA for job training or education mostly special education.

6)     L Visa: - This type of visa is used by intracompany people so that they can get connected with various multinational companies.

7)     O visas: - A person who is gifted or has achieved in various streams such as se commerce and arts.

 

How Jobs can be secured at USA

a)     Candidates must understand the various work visa categories and should select the one which is suitable for her or him.

b)    He or she should tailor the resume and cover letter to American standards.

c)     He or she should build professional networks through LinkedIn and must attend job affairs and networking events.

d)    Candidates should install Indeed, Glassdoor and LinkedIn so that they can search for jobs.

e)     He or she must prepare for an interview so that their skills and adaptability can be emphasised.

f)          He or she should cope up with American workplace and culture.

g)      He or she must have proper qualification and certifications in USA and if so, they should also have to give an extra exam for it.

h)     He or she must connect with Indian alumni network or association.

 

Can a fresher from India can get job at USA?

Yes, Indian freshers can get a job at USA. They should apply for jobs at technology or science. They should do networking, apply for internships, and use several job platforms.

Are there any jobs in USA for Indian 12th pass freshers?

There are many online jobs in USA for Indian freshers. Digital marketing, chat support and freelancers are offered at USA.

[commercialnoidas]

Will real estate market crash in 2024?

Is The Price of Indian Real Estate Inflated?

We will assess the Indian real estate market in this piece and determine whether a crash in the Indian real estate market is likely.

This commercial noida blog will address all of your inquiries about the collapse of the real estate market, including: • Will there be a real estate collapse in 2024? • Is There a Bubble in the Indian Real Estate Market? Will you be able to tell whether or not the real estate market is going to implode after reading this blog? What state is Indian real estate in at the moment? The Indian real estate sector is now experiencing tremendous growth. The markets for both residential and commercial real estate have grown, and prices are rising quickly.

Economic estimates predict that between 2020 and 2030, the Indian real estate market would expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.7%.

By 2030, it is anticipated to reach $1 trillion.

When discussing the Indian residential real estate market, Google users frequently pose the following queries:

Will the market for real estate decline again?

Will the cost of real estate in India decline?

These Google search searches reveal the level of market insecurity among investors.

Don't worry, though; residential real estate is expanding gradually and sustainably.

According to a survey conducted by Economic Times, there will be a 10-15% increase in residential real estate transactions in 2024.

The Statista analysis predicts that commercial real estate will expand at a yearly rate 11.19 percent.

Let's now assess how long this real estate boom will endure.

Will 2024 See a Real Estate Market Crash? The collapse of the real estate market is a topic of much discussion on social media and television.

All around you, you can hear individuals and some so-called experts refer to the current boom in India as a bubble and predict that it won't last.

That isn't the whole story, though.

First off, builders and brokers have neither created or driven this real estate boom.

Let's take a quick look at the actual causes of this surge in Indian real estate.

• The population of India is expanding dramatically. • An abrupt increase in the quantity of businesses. • An increase in people's income. • The digitalization of property

• Support from the government for the development of infrastructure

India's GDP and per capita income are rising along with the country's population.

India's growing housing need has made many eager to invest in real estate.

Businesses require additional room to accommodate people due to the expanding population.

The cost of rent is rising quickly.

Let's examine every aspect of the real estate boom and the reasons it is sustainable.

What factors contribute to the rise in real estate? The population of India has increased to 150 crores as a result of the growing demand for residential real estate, including homes, apartments, and land.

People prefer to acquire larger homes in order to be protected in the event that a pandemic of that nature occurs again, which has led to an upsurge in demand for larger homes following Corona.

For full blog visit commercialnoida blogs and If you want to invest in the Noida real estate market, contact us at commercialnoida or 7053707070.

[firstwatercapital]

This is India’s decade; we focus on the mid-caps, says Arun Chulani of First Water Capital Fund

Indian market is poised for gains in the long term and industries and businesses that will benefit from the ‘China + 1’ initiative, as well as the ‘Minus China’ movement, are the focus of Arun Chulani, Investment Advisor, First Water Capital Fund. In an interview with MintGenie, he talked about his view on the market.

Edited excerpts:

What is your view on the current market trajectory? For how long this rangebound move of the market may continue?

As a value investor, I think it is futile to try and predict the market’s short-term movements. It is far better to look at long-term themes and build conviction around a company’s intrinsic value.

Can the inflow of foreign flow sustain considering the strong gains in the dollar index and the rate hikes?

Again, to second guess what foreign investors might do and whether they will pull out their funds is of course important but while we may give credence to it, we prefer to focus on value. Of course, Uncle Sam wants some of his money back and conventional thinking might suggest that higher rates will allow some investors to better price risk and re-allocate to “perceived” more risk-free assets, which in turn might lead to outflows.

Are you positive about the domestic theme? What pockets are you bullish on?

Yes, most definitely. We are very hopeful that this is India’s decade. Much has been written about it in the press and there are multiple pockets that we would like to focus on. We are keen on industries and businesses that will benefit from the ‘China + 1’ initiative as well as the ‘Minus China’ movement. The latter are industries in which China itself is reducing its capacity – areas such as steel, chemicals, etc., as it looks to both reduce its pollution and upscale the products it focuses on. We are also keen on flexible packaging which is a relatively cheap proxy for the much fan-fared FMCG sector.

Can the mid and smallcaps outperform benchmarks? Please explain your views.

We very much focus on the mid-caps, and we believe that it is here that one can find value and companies that can create alpha. Of course on the flip side, you have to sometimes deal with opaque information and illiquidity. But with some luck and effort, one occasionally finds a diamond in the rough.

Is there more steam left in the auto stocks? What are the major challenges that the sector is still facing?

Autos are certainly an exciting space to be in, but I find them generally pricey. There is good scope for the sector but of course, there will always be risks due to high fuel prices, high input prices, and improvements in public sector transportation amongst other things.

The number of Demat accounts crossing 10 crores is a proud landmark. What factors have facilitated the rise of retail investors? Because of this, do you think the clout of FII will decrease in the Indian market?

We hope that this increase is due to a combination of factors. Ease of access, digitization, lower broker fees, and general education of making your money work. The market is one of the places where anyone with excess capital can invest and not only become an owner of some of India’s best companies but also benefit from India’s hopeful wealth creation. Of course, as the domestic investor becomes more disciplined and the GDP per capita grows, it will be more attractive for the FII.

The views expressed are the authors own. Please consult your financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

To know more information visit us on:

[bdb-india]

BDB is Business Strategy consulting firm India.

BDB India Private Limited is a leading global business strategy consulting and market research company in India. Since 1989, BDB has been providing clients with solutions to expand their businesses in the Indian and international marketplace. We are an ISO certified company.  BDB is Business Strategy consulting firm India.

India’s Real GDP and Real Per Capita GDP from 2023-2030

Despite the fact that India’s economy is still in a good place due to its momentum, resilience, favourable demographics, and rising productivity (1), this decade’s growth is most likely to average less than 6% annually. Through 2023 to 2030, India’s real GDP and real per capita growth rates will continue to exceed those of the rest of the world.

India appears promising since it has the capacity to absorb significant investments. These investors want to restrict or cut future investments in China. India is eager to develop logistics and go through a digital transformation. The gross domestic product per capita might rise from $2,500 to $5,000 in six to seven years, with an expected annual growth rate of over 6%.

Read More…https://bdbipl.com/index.php/indian-economy-and-industry-trends/.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

“We are where we are because our culture is special” Konstantin Kisin LIVE in Melbourne

Before I say anything else, it's such a pleasure to be in Australia. It's my first time here. I didn't really know what to expect. I was actually on the flight over. This Australian guy recognized me, he came over, we started chatting, he found out I was doing a few talks and he said, oh mate, watch out we've got a big problem, political correctness in Australia. I didn't know what to think. So, I get to my hotel, I check in, lady gives me the card says, this is your card for your room and if you want to have breakfast tomorrow, go to the two fat Indians. I was like, this is my kind of place. Wouldn't happen in the UK. We don't use the word "fat" anymore, we say "people of girth."

Now, thank you all for coming out. As Scott said it's so lovely to see so many young people here, many of you under 50. So, thank you for coming. All six of you. It's a pleasure to see you. I'm not going to speak for very long, I'm really keen to get to your questions in the Q&A that we're going to do with Glenn in a minute.

But the thing I wanted to talk to you about tonight, just to set the tone of our discussion really, is something that I'm constantly talking about now, and Scott mentioned the title of my book "An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West," is the West.

What is the West? How do we define it, how do we think about it? And the reason I think about it is, as he mentioned, I was born in the Soviet Union and grew up in that country, in that society, and then in early '90s - mid 90s - I moved to England. And by the way, those of you who've seen my ARC speech, you'll remember I mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. And somebody later claimed online that I was comparing myself to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. This is ridiculous, of course, there's no comparison. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spent most of his life in a prison camp where he endured terrible conditions, punishments and brutal beatings and a starvation diet. I went to an English boarding school. That's where the similarities end.

But what is the West? I think it's very important to think about this and particularly here in Australia, because you're a Western country in the middle of Asia. And it strikes me that if you were to conduct an experiment to prove that Western civilization is special in some way, you would do what the British did here. You'd find a barren continent on the other side of the world full of venomous creatures. You'd collect a few thousand of your least law-abiding citizens, let's put it diplomatically, right. You'd ship them over, you'd leave them there for a couple of centuries, you let them crack on with it, and then you'd come back and have a look. Right? And what would you see? What would you see? Well, you'd see a society that, broadly speaking, is thriving.

What do I mean by thriving? Well, there's different ways to look at it. We could talk about GDP per capita or some kind of boring poll numbers. When I think about it, I think about the fact that, how many Australians are taking their children, climbing into rickety boats and braving shark infested waters in search of a better life? And yet, thousands of people are doing the exact opposite to come here. That's what I mean by thriving. Nowm it seems to me that that West experiment requires some kind of explanation. We know that it's not random. Millions of people are streaming through the southern border of the United States, dealing with Mexican cartels and putting themselves and their children in danger to go to the United States. Tens of thousands of people are getting onto boats and crossing the English Channel, which again is a perilous journey. And so on? Why is this happening? It seems to me that this requires some kind of explanation. This is not an accident. This is not an accident at all. But we seem to not really understand that anymore.

And I think about it like this. If I was to wake you up in the middle of the night and put a gun to your head and ask you why is this happening? Why is the West attracting people to come here? And we've got to a point in our culture where quite a lot of people would rather die in that situation than admit the truth. Which is our societies are better. I don't mean superior. I just mean they're better at producing in the things that human beings seem to want. Right?

Now, what are they? What are the things? Well, if you watch too many Hollywood movies, you say, freedom and democracy! Okay, well, why are they good? Why is freedom good? Why is democracy good?

That's the silence I'm talking about. It's the silence in all of our heads because we no longer are able to articulate the reason that our civilization is successful as it is. And I think this is a big problem. A big, big problem. The West has become -- I talked about this in my book -- it's a little bit like a cargo cult. Most of you probably in this neck of the woods know what one is, but I'll explain anyway.

During World War II, the Americans and the Japanese used many small islands in the Pacific to station troops to have munitions dumps, to station their supplies, etc. And what happened was the local tribes that lived there were fairly primitive technologically. They benefited massively from the fact that they were able to get access to Western medicine, Western food, Western supplies, clothing, etc. And their quality of life improved dramatically. And then the war ended, and the Americans and the Japanese packed up and went home. And the western food and the western supplies and the western clothes ended or started running out. So, what did the native tribes that lived on these islands do? Well, they saw what the Americans had been doing and the Japanese, so they started imitating. They made headphones out of coconuts. They made radio towers out of bamboo. They created fake landing strips and marched up and down with fake rifles made out of bamboo.

And this is increasingly what we do in the West with our own values. We say these words, freedom, democracy, but we have no idea what they mean anymore. We can't explain to our children why they should value those things, because we don't think about them, because we've been trained not to.

So, what do I mean, exactly? Let me try and articulate it in a simple way. People don't come to our countries and risk their lives for freedom and democracy. Very, very few people do. The reason people come is our society is very, very good at creating the things that all human beings want: safety, prosperity and the ability to choose your gender.

Now, why are our societies so good at creating safety and prosperity? I asked Jordan Peterson this once at dinner. I said to him, what is Western civilization? And Jordan did what Jordan always does, he launched into a 20-minute monologue where you have no idea what he's talking about... for the first 18 minutes, right. And then at about the 19-minute mark, it all makes sense. And this is what he said. He said, there are chimp troops, and in a chimp troop there two primary strategies for how an alpha male can control that troop.

The first is, you're the biggest and the most powerful and the strongest and you will dominate through force and power and brutality anyone who challenges your authority. And this is an effective strategy, but only in the short term. Only as long as you are the strongest, only as long as you are the most powerful. The moment you take your eye off the ball, you get injured, you're a little bit weaker, you're a little bit older, you meet with a very brutal end because another chimp or another couple of chimps will come in and they will tear your head off, right?

There's another strategy, and it's the reason that actually most alpha male chimps are often the smallest in the troop. And the reason is, that they are able to build coalitions by grooming the other members -- in a good way. And exchanging things, they build coalitions. And the first principle of Western civilization that has made us as successful as we are, what we call democracy, what we really mean is government by consent. The idea that the individual matters enough that when he's governed by others, It Is by consent. And this is very different, as you're probably well aware, to many other societies around the world.

Now this doesn't just apply to government. I'm not just talking about politics. This matters at every level of our societies. Our armies fight better because the soldier on the ground is able to feed information up the chain of command. In almost every aspect of our society, that freedom of the individual and the fact that the individual matters, creates better results and better outcomes,

Think about this. I mean, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine because no one can tell him the truth anymore. He was told that Ukraine would fold in three days, the Ukrainians would welcome them with bread and salt. That's not what happened, and while the war is not necessarily going that well for Ukraine, probably not going that well for either side, Vladimir Putin did not expect it to go like this. And the casualties and losses he's taken are completely unexpected. Why is that? Because in our system, our leaders are kept firmly on the ground. Their egos are kept in check and we do not create these power vacuums where one person controls everything. And we're not able to speak truth to power at all.

This ideal of consensual leadership matters in everything. It's the reason there's never been a Chernobyl-level nuclear disaster in the West. Because the kinds of human errors that were made in that disaster could never -- not never -- but they're much, much less likely in our societies because of the fact that the voice of the individual matters.

Which is where we come to the second pillar of our civilization, which is freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of research. You know, it's so funny that people call me right-wing because I said freedom of speech matters. I kind of thought that was a universal position in the West, but I've discovered that that is now how it's coded. And the reason I think freedom of speech matters is that you cannot think without speaking. You have to speak to think. And when you speak, you will very often find out that what you think is utter crap. Because other people will tell you. This is Twitter in a nutshell, right? And it's this sharpening of idea against idea that is the reason that the Western societies have produced scientists and researchers and thinkers who've been able to ask and answer questions that you could not even raise in other societies. This is the bedrock of our success. The technological superiority that our societies have enjoyed through the ages are impossible to explain in any other way.

Think about this, and please understand I'm saying this in a morally neutral manner, it's just an example of that gap. Hernán Cortés arrived in Central America with a few hundred conquistadors, and because of his technological advantage, he was able to conquer an empire of five to six million Aztecs in a matter of years. That is the kind of superiority that we enjoy because of the way that we think freely, comparatively freely, because we are comparatively free from the dogma of religious control, authoritarian control, government control and social restriction, too, and cultural restriction.

So, these things have a very real and practical consequences. Did you see, by the way, how many of you have seen the Oppenheimer movie? Quite a lot of you. If you haven't seen it, it's a movie about the Manhattan Project, the way that the nuclear bomb was made. And if you weren't paying too much attention, you wouldn't have noticed that it being a Hollywood movie they sort of talk about, oh you know, reds under the bed, red scare, McCarthyism getting out of hand, and everybody was getting hounded for being communist. And right at the end, they just slip in the fact that actually it was Communists in America that gave Stalin the nuclear bomb, right.

And why is that interesting to me? Well, the first Russian nuclear bomb was called RDS1, and RDS stands for "Rossija dellajet sama," "Russia does it by itself." Which is ironic, given that it was almost entirely stolen from the Americans. The second greatest superpower in the world at that time could not produce it by itself. It had to steal it. That is the level of technological and scientific superiority that we in the West enjoy.

Now, please understand I'm not even remotely suggesting that the West has some kind of monopoly on genius and Innovation and creativity. It's not the case, of course. People have great ideas everywhere. The Chinese invented gunpowder. But every single development in the history of firearms since, pretty much, from the musket to the cruise missile, has been made here in the West. Now, why is that? The reason is that we have an incentive structure in the West that encourages people to pursue innovation in a way that is completely impossible anywhere else.

Now what do I mean by that? Well, again, it's a word that we no longer understand the meaning of: capitalism. But what capitalism really means is, private property and the rule of law. And it's amazing to me, the extent to which people do not understand in the West how rare these things are. There is no private property in Russia. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia. And then he gave some money to an opposition party, and he was no longer the richest man in Russia. He spent 10 years in a penal camp instead. In the penal, prison system, right. Because he gave money to the opposition party.

I don't know who the richest man in Australia is, but I don't imagine if he gave money to the opposition party that would be the case with him. It's the same in China. Or, someone thinks maybe will happen, I don't know, things are getting out of hand here. The same thing is true in China. Jack Ma makes some comments about banking regulation, of all controversial things, and disappears the next day and all sorts of trouble. Bao Fan, this is a billionaire in China again, no one quite knows what he did but disappeared for a year, turned up a few weeks ago after a year of being completely unheard of, and miraculously resigned from all his positions.

Private property and the rule of law are rare and unique. Now, why does this matter? Well, if you don't get to keep the things that you create then the incentive is not to innovate, the incentive is to comply. The reason we innovate in the West as much as we do is we get to keep the benefits of our creations. And it's an incentive structure that means that we are of service to our fellow citizens. In the Soviet Union, where I grew up, or in Russia today the way you get ahead is not by providing or creating things that are of value to other people, it's by doing things that -- and it's not just, by the way, Communist societies or Russia today, it's corrupt regimes everywhere -- the way you get ahead is not by looking after the needs of your fellow citizens, creating things that they want to buy or they want to consume. You get ahead by pandering to the corrupt regime that's in charge. Or to the clique of people that service the corrupt regime that is in charge.

Capitalism is a way of aligning our incentives to create things that are of real value to our fellow citizens. And that is why we have the innovation that we have. This system drives our prosperity, and prosperity drives our strength and the stability that we've had.

Now, government by consent, freedom of expression and freedom more generally and capitalism, I put it to you ladies and gentlemen, that all three of these pillars of our civilization are under threat today. Not only from the outside, but also from the inside. We'll talk more with Glenn about it in the Q&A, but we've got a real problem with democracy for reasons that we can get into later.

Our young people are not being brought up to understand why capitalism is the system that has produced the amazing things that we have. And freedom of expression, I think we all know is being eroded. Why is this happening? Well, my view is, and I think this is well documented at this point, that we have two or three generations of people in our societies now who have not been taught the things that we've just discussed. Instead, they've been taught to hate their own societies. They've been taught to hate the values of their own civilization. Iit is no surprise, therefore, that we're heading in the direction that we're heading.

This is what Orwell talked about when he said that, he who controls the past controls the future. If we do not understand our past and where we come from, we will not get to a bright future that we want. And when you dare to bring this up, you know, people keep saying, oh you're so brave. I'm not brave, I'm just saying some very, very obvious things that everybody knows, that's it, right.

But when you bring this up, I think what people mean is, people say, oh that these are culture war talking points. As if a society's culture doesn't matter. We are where we are because our culture is special. We are where we are because our culture is unique. And so, the real message that I have for you tonight, and I hope that we get to talk more about this is, our culture is very, very important, and if people are going to call me a culture warrior ,well that's fine. Because I think it's worth fighting for.

Thank you very much.

==

The people who want to "destroy capitalism" also Tweet from their current-generation smartphone that they want free stuff produced by the same system they want to destroy, and don't think they sound like morons. The people who call the West evil and corrupt with the confidence of a Gender Studies bozo have never lived anywhere else, have no idea, and don't think everyone can tell. The people who claim to want to tear down their comfortable, safe, Western country are the same ones who object to immigration restrictions and can't see how braindead they are.

This self-hatred isn't humility, it's performative sadomasochism.

[shahronak47]

Problems with democracy.

When I was growing up, I was always under the impression that democracy was the best way to govern a country. It was always portrayed very strongly by using phrases like government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Dictatorship or communist way of ruling a country is very oppressive. However, as I have grown up and read/experienced different things I have started seeing some flaws in democracy and I doubt if it is the best way to govern a country. Here, I want to put across certain thoughts that I have regarding the same.

I am going to mostly speak about democracy in an Indian context since that is what I am most aware of.

Firstly, in a developing country like India, not everyone is capable of thinking long-term. They are highly influenced by short-term results and decisions. If we are going to allow 1.4 billion people to have an opinion where the collective intellectual is low (?), it is going to create chaos and directionlessness.

When you are trying to give a ticket to a candidate in a particular locality, the most important parameter that you have to consider is the religion of the candidate vs that of the majority of people in the locality. How much influence does that person have in the locality? Unfortunately, it is not based on the work he/she has done in that area or their vision of the locality they are serving. The party needs to select candidates from specific communities if they have the majority in that area irrespective of their skillset because that is how people vote. So if there is a Muslim candidate in a Hindu majority locality who is very well educated, with a clear vision, and is not corrupt. The chances of that person getting a ticket are very low because people still vote based on religion. The opposite also is true about a Hindu candidate in the Muslim majority. In the long-term whose loss is that? When a candidate can take you from 1-10 in 3 years, you settle with a candidate who'll only take you from 1-3 in 3 years. In the worst case, some candidates also take you in negative but people still vote for the candidate based on their beliefs.

They also need to lure people to vote for them by introducing freebie schemes which are a disaster for the nation. The majority of people find free buses and electricity as beneficial. Again, they don't understand that nothing is free in this world. Someone somewhere is paying for that stuff. States are going more into debt by announcing such free schemes. The political parties do not worry about finance nor do they worry about the state or country for that matter. If my announcing these schemes gets me elected for the next 5 years let me do it, the financial burden would be taken care of by the next person and you know what the worst part of this is? Other states seeing this start demanding the same thing which takes more states into debt making the country poorer. Again the short-term benefit of free busses introduces the long-term impact of higher taxes. However, people seem to be ok with it. I am not saying that there should not be anything free in the country. Definitely, some people are extremely poor and they deserve this free scheme but it should be a very small percentage. Making bus travel for all the women or all the elderly is not a wise move in my opinion.

People with criminal histories are given tickets because they always get elected. Political parties need seats and they are ok to accept anyone in their party as long as they win the elections. Political parties say that only these people get elected so we need to give them the seat whereas people say that we have only such people on our list so we don't have any other option to vote. Both of them point fingers at each other.

Personally, as a solution, I have started tilting away from democracy at least in the initial period. Until a country reaches some x% of individuals who are educated and y% of GDP per capita income till that time the reigns of a country should be given to one person who we collectively believe in as our leader and trust who has good intentions for the country. Give them a free hand to do whatever they want to without the fear of losing their chair. Lots of decisions, policymakers are feared to take because it is bad in the short term for the people but in the long term, they will yield good results. Because of a lack of education, a lot of people can only look at the short-term results so such decisions can be taken now since you have a free hand. Give that person 15 years and see what he can do.

After you achieve the key milestones of x% of education and y% of per capita GDP we switch back to democracy mode hoping that the mentality of most people is now changed and they have country country-first approach in mind rather than me first or my caste first or my religion first.

The major part has to be played by common people. In a democracy, political parties are going to become what we want them to become. All the parties have some corrupt people, some criminals, etc. If we really don't have a candidate in our constituency that we can support can we choose the None of the above (NOTA) option. It has been built for this purpose. There are less than 1% of people who vote for this option but I think we should increase this percentage so that these parties start taking it seriously and then talk with people asking them why they chose this option.

Moreover, there should be a feeling of ownership. When I see my house is dirty, the first thing I am going to do is start cleaning it before pointing fingers at others that they did it and they should clean it. It is not my responsibility to clean the house.

[mapsontheweb]

Growth in Per Capita Income in India

Net state domestic product (NSDP) is the state counterpart to a country's Net domestic product (NDP), which equals the gross domestic product (GDP) minus depreciation on a country's capital goods. 📈 Here's the growth of per capita Income by indian states. NSDP Per Capita from 2011-12 to 2021-22. No data is available for the union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Lakshdweep and Ladakh.

by the.graphic.earth

[niranjan-hiranandani]

The Invigorating Indian Real Estate Market in 2023 - Niranjan Hiranandani

Due to the eagerness of discriminating homebuyers to invest in or buy a home, the Indian real estate market is booming. For reasons of career mobility, first-time homebuyers who previously tended to rent are now more likely to buy. Owners now understand the importance of having a house that offers stability, privacy, and convenience for their families, especially in light of the unprecedented pandemic. The current economic climate is fueled by a number of variables that drive demand for homes, including the following:

1. A rise in disposable income

2. An optimistic capital market

3. New hires

4. Long-term tax benefit on capital gains

5. Invest in larger residences for a higher standard of living

6. The availability of empty-nested houses

7. Upbeat about upcoming profits

8. Vigorous consumption

9. A stable interest rate for house loans

10. The availability of mortgages

11. Increased number of first-time homebuyers

12. Fresh supply of homes

13. Demand in Tier, Peripheral, and Metro areas

14. Infrastructure development spurs last-mile connectivity

15. Growth in the market for aspirational homebuyers

16. Housing sector's K-factor recovery

17. Increasing urbanization and employment prospects

18. Instability among NRI driven by geopolitics

19. Greater affordability of purchasing a home

We observe strong real estate sales and registrations in light of the auspicious holiday feelings, as new projects are introduced, new sales are made, and demand is maintained. With several redevelopment, luxury, and SRA projects launched in India's major real estate markets, purchasers have a plethora of options from reputable, well-organized developers.

Know More :- The Buoyant Indian Real Estate Market

Strong economic and GDP growth is indicated by the real estate industry's success, which has a multiplier effect on employment and per capita income. With its influence on 270 related industries, Indian real estate creates the second most jobs in the country. The Indian real estate market is now more controlled and regulated as a result of the implementation of structural rules. The real estate sector will contribute $1 million toward the country's objective of a $5 trillion economy by raising its GDP contribution from 7% to 15% by 2030.

As per Niranjan Hiranandani, The sector claims that rising borrowing rates and the cost of raw materials have led to the current decline in affordable housing. The increase in affordable housing costs affects a wide range of purchasers. The government and regulators can reduce unaffordability by enacting several fiscal and monetary stimulus measures.

[ebelal56-blog]

Indian Economy vs. Chinese Economy! (Which is better?)

The comparison between the Indian and Chinese economies is a complex and multifaceted analysis that delves into various key indicators and factors. Looking at the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), China emerges as a powerhouse with a nominal GDP of approximately $17.7 trillion in 2023, compared to India's $3.5 trillion. However, when considering Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), China's GDP stands at around $27.3 trillion, while India's is approximately $11.7 trillion. Despite China's larger GDP, India has shown consistent growth rates of 6-7% annually, slightly outpacing China's 5-6% growth. In terms of economic structure, China's economy is dominated by the tertiary sector (services), accounting for around 54% of GDP, followed by the secondary sector (industry) at 39%, and the primary sector (agriculture) at 7%. On the other hand, India's economy is more service-oriented, with the tertiary sector contributing 58% to GDP, followed by the primary sector at 17% and the secondary sector at 25%. Population-wise, China and India are neck and neck, with approximately 1.41 billion and 1.42 billion people, respectively. However, China has a higher urbanization rate of around 61%, compared to India's 34%. This urban-rural divide plays a significant role in shaping the economic landscape of both countries. When it comes to trade and investment, China is a global leader, with exports totaling around $3.5 trillion and imports at $2.7 trillion in 2023. The country also attracts significant Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with net inflows of around $163 billion in 2022. In contrast, India's exports and imports stand at approximately $670 billion and $750 billion, respectively, with FDI net inflows of around $83 billion in 2022. Development indicators paint a picture of contrasting realities between the two nations. China boasts a higher Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.761, ranking 85th globally, with a per capita income of around $12,000 and a poverty rate below 1%. In comparison, India's HDI is lower at 0.645, ranking 132nd, with a per capita income of around $2,500 and a higher poverty rate, particularly in rural areas. Technological and infrastructure development also showcase disparities between China and India. China leads in high-tech industries such as AI, 5G, and green technologies, with advanced infrastructure including high-speed rail, modern highways, and extensive urban development. India, on the other hand, is making strides in software and IT services but lags behind in terms of high-speed rail, urban infrastructure, and logistics. Both countries face unique challenges that shape their economic trajectories. China is grappling with the need for economic rebalancing from investment-led growth to consumption-led growth, an aging population leading to potential labor shortages, and significant environmental issues such as pollution and degradation. India, on the other hand, struggles with high levels of informal employment and underemployment, a deficit in infrastructure that requires substantial improvements, and pervasive economic and social inequality. In summary, while China's economy is currently larger and more developed in various aspects, India's growth potential is evident, driven by its youthful population and expanding service sector. China's infrastructure and technological advancements outshine India's, but the latter has strengths in software and IT services. Both countries face challenges that must be addressed to ensure sustainable growth and development in the future.

[tanshengzheng]

Tan Sheng Zheng: Opportunities and Challenges of the Indian Economy - In-depth Analysis

In the current profound transformation of the global economic landscape, investors are increasingly paying attention to economies with strong development potential. As the world's fifth-largest economy, India naturally attracts wide attention from the investment community. Tan Sheng Zheng has conducted in-depth exploration of India's economy, hoping to provide some unique insights for investors interested in the Indian economy. Tan Sheng Zheng believes that India's recent economic growth is remarkable. In 2022, India's nominal GDP reached $3.4 trillion, ranking only behind economic giants such as the United States, China, Japan, and Germany. Although its per capita GDP is still relatively low, its real GDP growth rate in the second quarter of 2023 reached 7.8%, demonstrating its strong economic recovery momentum. Tan Sheng Zheng states that such data undoubtedly makes India one of the fastest-growing economies among G20 countries. When analyzing India's economy, Tan Sheng Zheng specifically mentioned the demographic dividend period that India is entering, which will bring tremendous support to its economic growth. He points out that India has a large young population, relatively low labor costs, and a high rate of English proficiency, all of which contribute to its strong economic growth potential. However, India's economic growth also faces some challenges. For example, low female labor force participation, inadequate overall education levels, and an uncertain business environment may limit India's long-term economic growth. Tan Sheng Zheng mentioned that for investors, understanding a country's economic endowment, industrial policies, monetary and fiscal policies, international cooperation, and financial markets are crucial. These five aspects directly influence a country's investment environment and growth potential. Tan Sheng Zheng will conduct an in-depth analysis of India's economy from these five aspects to help investors better understand the investment opportunities and challenges in India. Tan Sheng Zheng believes that India does have significant advantages in terms of economic endowment. Its young population structure, English proficiency, and relatively low labor costs are all powerful factors attracting foreign investment to India. This also means that India has enormous market potential and consumer power. However, the low female labor force participation, inadequate overall education levels, and infrastructure deficiencies pose significant constraints on its long-term development. Tan Sheng Zheng mentioned that in terms of industrial policies, the Indian government is making efforts to reverse its long-standing reliance on the service sector. The support for manufacturing in recent years and the rapid development of the digital economy demonstrate India's determination in industrial structural adjustment. This is a positive sign as it can not only help India better integrate into the global manufacturing supply chain but also drive the development of related industries, thus creating more employment opportunities. In terms of monetary and fiscal policies, India has made some progress in addressing its inflation problem, but inflation remains a key issue to focus on, especially under the influence of key factors such as international oil prices and food production. Tan Sheng Zheng states that India's decentralized fiscal system also brings complexity to its economic management, but the Indian government's increase in capital expenditure in recent years will undoubtedly have a positive impact on improving long-term productivity.

[noor-f]

Female Employment Rates & GDP per capita

The topic that I chose to further explore throughout this course is the relationship between the female employment rates in countries and whether or not a correlation exists between it and the country's GDP per capita. I chose this topic as it is a topic that I am very interested in as a female from the MENA region in which the female employment rate is relatively low than in other countries. If this topic proves that there is in fact a positive correlation then it is something that the nations and their governments in the region need to further invest in and would require more of their focus.

The data set that I will be using is extracted from the GapMinder codebook, and through it I will be using the following two variables; incomeperperson & femaleemployrate (screenshot below for reference).

Through my literature review, I have concluded that there is little to no research conducted on the correlation between the two variables that don't explore the question of "Does a country's female employment rate correlate with GDP per capita?", concluding that there is a research gap that exists regarding the previously published papers. However, Lahoti & Swaminathan (2013) have explored this topic in the Indian population, and have reached the conclusion of that there is no correlation that exists between the two in India; and even though their research has been limited to India, the assumption can be generalized in some cases. Moreover, an indirectly related topic discussed by Tasseven (2017) on the relationship that economic development rates, which includes GDP, have on female employment rates in a country, it was concluded that there is infact a positive correlation between the two, as countries with higher GDP per capita had much higher female employment rates when compared to countries that have lower GDP per capita.

This reaffirms the topic choice as there is no definite answer that is reached and it is a crucial topic to be explored for the benefit of economies all around the world.

This leads me to my hypothesis which is "Female employment rates have a positive correlation with GDP per capita".

References (for articles):

Lahoti, R., & Swaminathan, H. (2013). Economic development and female labor force participation in India. IIM Bangalore Research Paper, (414).

Tasseven, O. (2017). The relationship between economic development and female labor force participation rate: a panel data analysis. Global Financial Crisis and Its Ramifications on Capital Markets: Opportunities and Threats in Volatile Economic Conditions, 555-568.