Among BRICS 2013 FDI Stastics
Brazil - $63 billion
Russia - $94 billion
India - $28 billion
China - $127 billion
South Africa - $10 billion
Source: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrar ... 4d1_en.pdf

Britain's economy in 2013 recorded its fastest annual growth since the financial crisis, data from the UK government’s Office for National Statistics showed Tuesday. The quarterly GDP figure took the UK’s full-year growth for 2013 up to 1.9 percent, from just 0.3 percent the year before, Reuters said. This is the highest GDP growth since 2007. However, total output is still 1.3 percent below the pre-financial crisis peak reached in the first quarter of 2008. GDP rose by 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013. The rate of growth could influence the Bank of England’s decision on when to raise record-low interest rates.
History of Indian Rupee devaluation:
The Indian currency has witnessed a slippery journey since Independence. The Indian rupee, which was on a par with the American currency at the time of Independence in 1947, has depreciated by a little more than 65 times against the greenback in the past 66 years.
When India got freedom on August 15, 1947, the value of the rupee was on a par with the American dollar. There were no foreign borrowings on India's balance sheet.
To finance welfare and development activities, especially with the introduction of the Five-Year Plan in 1951, the government started external borrowings. This required the devaluation of the rupee.
After independence, India had chosen to adopt a fixed rate currency regime. The rupee was pegged at 4.79 against a dollar between 1948 and 1966.
Two consecutive wars, one with China in 1962 and another one with Pakistan in 1965; resulted in a huge deficit on India's budget, forcing the government to devalue the currency to 7.57 against the dollar.
The rupee's link with the British currency was broken in 1971 and it was linked directly to the US dollar.
In 1975, value of the Indian rupee was pegged at 8.39 against a dollar.
In 1985, it was further devalued to 12 against a dollar.
In 1991, India faced a serious balance of payment crisis and was forced to sharply devalue its currency. The country was in the grip of high inflation, low growth and the foreign reserves were not even worth to meet three weeks of imports. Under these situations, the currency was devalued to 17.90 against a dollar.
1993 was very important. This year currency was let free to flow with the market sentiments. The exchange rate was freed to be determined by the market, with provisions of intervention by the central bank under the situation of extreme volatility. This year, the currency was devalued to 31.37 against a dollar. The rupee traded in the range of 40-50 between 2000 and 2010.
It was mostly at around 45 against a dollar. It touched a high of 39 in 2007.
The Indian currency has gradually depreciated since the global 2008 economic crisis.
In 2013, the Indian rupee extended falls to a new low of 65.50 to the dollar as heavy demand from importers along with weak domestic equities continued to weigh on sentiment.
Yes, I agree gold holding is an effect of chronic inflation and periodic currency devaluation. But that does not mean that it is the solution as some BRF members here suggest. That was the point I was trying to make. That did not work in the past and it will not work in the future. To sustain growth and maintain independence, technological parity is essential. To achieve that, innovation and improvement in science and technology is essential even if it is to play catchup with US/Europe where capital flows into constant improvement and innovation. This requires capital investment which means all of India's savings cannot be locked into precious metals. If it is locked, be prepared for another invasion and be ready to lose everything again.Suraj wrote:DhruvP: you're absolutely correct about the issue with gold holdings. However the fundamental reason is that India has had chronically high inflation, while lacking either a concerted attempt to minimize inflation, or a credible inflation indexed treasury paper. If GoI demonstrates the ability to maintain high growth and low inflation, then citizens will be more open to holding debt. As things stand, their desire for gold as an inflation hedge is a logical act.
The people elected their government, ergo, it is their responsibility ultimately as a nation to control inflation albeit indirectly.Suraj wrote:It definitely will not sustain growth because it's a sink of capital. However one should ask, is it the people's job to be sacrifice explicitly in the face of chronic ~10% price inflation, without attendant robust economic growth, job security or rapid development in the quality of life ? No, the peoples' imperative is to safeguard their savings. It's the job of the elected government to ensure price stability and growth via prudent policymaking. If you look back at the gold discussion sometime last summer/autumn in the Indian economy thread, I had stated as such - GoI should curtail gold consumption because it's unproductive and they need to target savings into productive avenues, but that they will fail in the exercise if it doesn't also implement structural reforms to generate growth, jobs and greater investor confidence. We may be better off continuing in the Indian economy thread, since there was a several-pages long discussion on this there a few months ago.
Why blame a party? If you and me let them exist, they are happy to stick around little longer (i.e. another 50 years). It is very easy to find a person to blame, just look in the mirror....
I find it mind-boggling that a party that constantly was responsible for India's periodic devaluation of currency while at the same time appearing helpless in the face of massive inflation in basic necessities recurrently was even allowed to exist let alone win elections for 55 years of its existence out of the 60 years it existed!
....
DhruvP wrote:[..........think the US economy is about to implode which is the recurrent theme of this thread.
5000000000 dollars short fall as of this month for Chicago onlee.The Chicago Tribune headlined a news story: "Chicago pension tab: $18,596 for every man, woman, child." That's pretty scary. Fortunately my Chicago public school teachers taught me about fractions and denominators. That is what is missing here.
The key point is that Chicago does not have to pay this money tomorrow or even over the next year. This is a liability over the next 30 years. The relevant denominator then is Chicago's income over the next 30 years. I don't have the time to check the city's income data just now, but if we assume that disposable (after-tax) per capita income is the same as for the country as a whole ($40,000 a year), we get that the discounted value over the next 30 years will be roughly $1.1 million. (This assumes 2.4 percent average annual growth and a 3.0 percent real discount rate.)
I also don't have time to review the basis for the $18,596 pension tab, which puts the unfunded liability at around $50 billion, almost twice the official figure.
Necessary for what/who?Theo_Fidel wrote:Neshant,
A little inflation is necessary to most economies.
How?Theo_Fidel wrote:Neshant,
For economies trying to grow and increase productive activity.
For those who are already wealthy and are only focused on wealth preservation, things like gold make sense.
For the rest of us who depend on economic expansion for wealth accumulation, some inflation helps the economy grow and invest.
Yes thats true saar. But a big BUT. People inherently are savers. Not investors or gamblers. Why should someone like say my mother or your grand mother be constantly chasing a return when they have other more pressing issues? The game being rigged as it is has made the ordinary folks into what they do not want to be.Suraj wrote: They usually go the way of managed inflation because the holders have ways to stay ahead of inflation, but by investing in riskier assets. .
There's no 'but' involved here. You're talking about the individual's imperative. I'm talking about the central bank's imperative. Inflation will progressively erode one's purchasing power. Everyone knows that - even the illiterate. But it happens by stealth, and the human psyche is that people tolerate a slow loss longer than a sudden change to their circumstances.panduranghari wrote:Yes thats true saar. But a big BUT. People inherently are savers. Not investors or gamblers. Why should someone like say my mother or your grand mother be constantly chasing a return when they have other more pressing issues? The game being rigged as it is has made the ordinary folks into what they do not want to be.
Theoji is absolutely right. Some inflation is a must for any growing economy. Remember, demand drives growth. When there is demand, you always need to pay more because there are more people looking for the same resources. Also, you want government to print more more paper to sop up this demand so work is actually done.
Says who?It is the job of government to provide paper
These arguments generally seem very intuitive. What amazes me is that debt ridden economies of the west (and Japan) print their way out of recession keep interest rate artificially low, and also benefit as they start winding down money printing. As in last couple of weeks, the Fed taper action strengthened currencies and lowered rates for debt ridden economies of the west. Looks like they benefit regardless, with respect to EM, whether they print money or not. Sometimes I wonder if this phenomenon is even possible in isolation, without geopolitical interventions.It wasn’t too long ago that emerging markets were seen as the saviors of the global economy. In 2009, when advanced economies’ gross domestic product (GDP) fell 3.43 percent, emerging market economies grew 3.1 percent. Capital poured in – from investors looking for the only place they could actually grow their money to multinational corporations investing directly in facilities and equipment.
But investors don’t invest in emerging markets like they do in developed markets. Capital rushes in when the economy is hot; when the economy cools, investors dump their local currency holdings. That leaves piles of devalued local currency which the central bank is hard-pressed to prop up. (In developed markets like the U.S., United Kingdom, Japan, in contrast, investors are more willing to hold on to the currency.)....
Suraj wrote:In which century did the US have zero inflation ?
A free market is one in which those who EARN the wealth select the medium of exchange in their best interest. This is unlike the present fiat money system where banking goons enter into an alliance with govt (which has a monopoly on the "legal" use of violence) to force productive society to use their toilet paper.Suraj wrote:The 'free market' as a reference to a national, or even a subnational econ
and clocked some of the fastest real growth
I said something else besides requesting a definition - that it doesn't exist anywhere at all, except in a very very narrow context for the limited exchange of one or more goods or services. In fact I would argue that it has never existed in any formal economy.Neshant wrote:A free market is one in which those who EARN the wealth select the medium of exchange in their best interest.
That graph shows exactly what zero inflation is.Suraj wrote:^^ That graph does not show anything regarding zero inflation.
Now lets see what the per-capita debt looks like. Could it be the exact same graph? Also lets strip out the ponzi scheme accounting where 100:1 leverage is used to goose the GDP numbers. Finally, lets ask - is this debt going to be repaid and if not, who eats the massive loss.Further, you should post the corresponding per-capita GDP figure, which was just as flat during the entire 1800s.
On a pure post 1971 fiat standard, the per capita income is falling, not rising. A person is in per capita terms worse off today than a person in 1971 which was when the fiat standard began in earnest. Once his share of the enormous debt is factored in (which surely won't be paid) and the real rate of inflation is used, he is even more worse off. Now ask why does the graph continue to show a line that keeps going up. All that graph is doing is showing bogus accounting.Per capita income went from ~$1000 in 1800 (in fixed 2004 dollars, i.e. real income, not nominal) to $4000 in 1900. A quadrupling of income in 100 years corresponds to a real per capita income growth rate of 1.4%.
That is not an example of what one can call clocked some of the fastest real growth
You must be kidding. How is it with all this rigor Bernanke did not see what will surely turn out to be the largest financial bubble in history while sitting atop it in 2006? In fact there are video clips of him even claiming there was no bubble. He could be forgiven for not seeing a couple of billion or two that got vaporized. But this guy almost oversaw the entire liquidation of the financial system and with it the GDP per capita leveraged pyramid scheme he's *still* trying to keep upright with more debt. Exactly what criteria is supposed to signal that trillions of debt is not going to be repaid in whatever financial model is in vogue?Even the 1800s inflation data is questionable, because the US did not track economic statistics with the kind of rigor it does today
It exists anywhere people have the right to choose the means in which they store & transact their wealth without coercion. It existed in parts of the US excluding the 3 times (including the present)when private banks created a central bank to suck wealth their way. It existed in India which made it a magnet for thieves seeking the riches of the East.I said something else besides requesting a definition - that it doesn't exist anywhere at all.