The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
Puerto Rico would be better off reunifying with its motherland Spain. The US invasion of this Spanish province in 1898 and the colonial regime afterwards has only produced dependency and misery, US colonialism in the Caribbean has failed miserably, Puerto Ricans do not assimilate and their economy is in shambles. Compare Canary Islands with Puerto Rico today, that is all you need to know, Canary Islands receives 15 million tourists while Puerto Rico receives only 4 million. Quality of life is much higher in Canary Islands. than in Puerto Rico. Oh, and Canary Islands is not bankrupt.
Total GDP growth number is totally meaningless, per capita GDP growth may be of some use. Japan is doing pretty well with a decline population.
Indian economy used to grow at 8.5% at least for two decades!
Dont make up facts
Oh, really? Please show your fact. Can you show us when India's economy grew more than 8.5% annually for three consecutive years in the last 50 years? In fact, just give us any three years, doesn't have to be three years running.
I am struck by the growth figures for Dominica and Anguilla, clearly tax havens which derive their growth from tax evasion planning schemes, at the cost of billions of dollars in tax incomes elsewhere.
Why no mention at all of the world's third largest economy (Japan), in either the text or the accompanying graphic?
Does anyone actually believe the numbers coming out of some of these countries? China for instance seems pretty clearly to be an 'internally satisfactory' number made up by their government. What portion of it is fueled by the artificial growth of building infrastructure and housing/commercial space no is using or will ever use? Some day that stuff will have degraded into uselessness (already happening to some of the 'ghost city' stuff) and before it can be actually used will need to be rebuilt. Who foots the bill for the rebuild?
If these wishful thinking were to believe or had any truth at all, we would not see a poor agrarian country transformed herself into the world's second largest economy, the largest trading nation, the largest industrial nation on the planet. We would not see the world's largest concentration of skyscrapers, the world's largest high-speed rail network, the world's largest outbound tourists by country, or 600+ million of people lifted out of poverty... I could go on.
If you insist not seeing or believing all the above, instead stick to your blindness and ignorance and bias, then please believe whatever you want to believe. Nobody can save you.
As I told my employees, a 100% increase of nothing is still....nothing. If your base number is low then a triple digit increase looks great statistically but is still (shall we say) underwhelming.
On the flip side, if the market is well developed with a historical growth pattern then a single digit increase is impressive.
My Grandfather wisely cautioned, there are liars, damn liars and statistics.
They all have to start from somewhere. Yes, it will take decades for poor African countries to catch up with the West but there are no magical solutions. Factories and infraestructure don't spring overnight. The alternative is believing in snake oil salesmen telling the population that they can all be rich overnight with populist measures and socialist wealth redistribution schemes, but that is no solution, as the example of Venezuela shows in this very chart.
Your grandfather was Yogi Berra?
"The World Bank said it now expects China's economy to grow 6.7 percent in 2017 and 6.4 percent in 2018. Its previous forecasts were for China to grow 6.5 percent in 2017 and 6.3 percent next year.
It cut Myanmar's growth forecasts by 0.5 percentage points for both 2017 and 2018, to 6.4 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively."
So who should we believe, The World Bank or TE.
1% own 60% wealth in India.
Romania has the darkest shade of blue in Europe. Seemingly, a 20 mi nation with fastest rate in Europe is of no interest to TE.
Sir. Nicaragua should be a darker shade of blue.
Developing economies like India can have hyper growth. But real growth rate is near zero. For example, India has been growing at about 8% annually for last two decades at least. At this growth rate, India should be richer than most developed countries. But India's per capita is still 3rd world standards. Although India has high growth, currency depreciation makes actual growth rate to zero.
Your last sentence is incorrect - This chart is based on REAL growth rates, thus taking currency depreciation and inflation into account.
India's economy is indeed experiencing very high growth rates, but coming from a very low base. Countries don't becone developed overnight, it takes decades of high growth and prudent fiscal and economic management.
Like other less developed, low income countries, it will take India decades of solid economic growth before its ordinary citizens can enjoy anything comparable to Western living standards, India still has to go through the middle income phase, the upper middle income phase, to finally become a high income economy, this needs decades of high growth.
This doesn't mean it can't be done. Countries like South Korea went from having income levels on par with Ghana in the 1950s to being on par with France today, but it took them a generation even in this, the best case scenario.
Developing a country is not magic, it takes the effort of millions of people over decades to be able to "catch up".
Indian economy used to grow at 8.5% at least for two decades! That's a generation. At such rate, per capita should exceed that of western europe now. But India is still a 3rd world country. Look GDP growth rate is measured in local currency without considering foreign exchange rate depreciation.
Real growth rates take inflation within that country into account - but they do not take changes in currency exchange rates into account, which would be extremely hard to predict in advance in any case.
So for e.g. in 2018 India could have nominal GDP growth of 13%, inflation of 5%, giving real GDP growth of 8% (in rupees), but IF the rupee fell 10% against the $ in 2018 then the $ value of the Indian economy would decline.
India is supposed to be the world's second largest economy by the middle of the century. They are being hamstrung by a lack of infrastructure.
"And the economy of Puerto Rico, technically an overseas territory of the United States, ..."
Puerto Ricans are US citizens. It is not a technicality.
Is the Economist trying to suggest otherwise?
Reading from the Orange Clown`s atlas, are we?
I guess TE considers Puerto Rico economy somewhat separately because Puerto Rico residents pay no federal income tax. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
Puerto Ricans don't vote for president, as Puerto Rico is not an American state, although for some effects they are treated as US citizens and can migrate to the USA. Being an Associate State is a messy business for both sides, as the recent events of the default on public debt and the hurricane relief have shown.
Puerto Rico should have a referendum with just two options: becoming the 51st American state or becoming an independent nation. Almost certainly the former option would win.
Puerto Rico is not alone in this Hamletian doubt. Jersey, Guernsey, Man and Gibraltar are also not part of the UK but, for many effects, they are part of the UK.
Puerto Rico is a Non-Incorporated Territory of the US. What part of Non-Incorporated you do not understand? It is clear, they are a possession but not a part of the US, that is why they have the right for self-determination, have their own international identity, do not vote and do not participate in US general elections and US Congressional elections. Did you see the 2016 World Olympics? Puerto Rico won gold medal in Tennis and their national anthem was played too.
Would be interesting to hear some elaboration on how data is collected on North Korea to form assumptions, considering the kind of secretive, totalitarian state that has been maintained there.
I think it's based on the assumptions that new sanctions will bite economy.
Are there any thoughts on what is causing Brunei to be in the bottom 5?
The oil market. The same explanation goes for Saudi Arabia and to some extent even for Venezuela (even though Venezuela's problems have more to do with poor economic policy than anything else).