India will be number two economy in the world by 2050
Goldman Sachs, the world’s largest investment bank has confirmed the research findings of the BRICs report – that India’s growth will be sustained as predicted, and India could become the second largest economy in the world after the United States China by 2050! This is according to a TOI report.
What is BRIC?
BRIC stands for four countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – and it was as far back as 2003 that Goldman Sachs mapped out the GDP growth, per capita income and currency movements for these four countries. But the 2003 BRICs report had given India the number 3 place, but now this has been revised to number 2 just a few days ago in a review by Goldman Sachs.
Reasons why India will rise:
1) Manufacturing productivity will drive growth. It’s performance will improve due to globalisation and increased competition.
2) India’s economic reforms are the reasons for this astounding predicted growth. India’s “increased openness to trade, investment in information and communication technology, and greater financial deepening.”
The fact that the previous chairman of Goldman Sachs Henry Paulson is today the treasury secretary in the Bush administration is also significant.
Some more important points from this report:
1) Growth for BRIC countries will slow at the end of this period.
2) Individuals in the BRIC countries will still be poorer on an average than individuals from the G6 countries, with the exception of Russia. China’s per capita is expected to be $30,000, approximately what it is for the developed nations today.
3) Local spending patterns will change and this will impact the demand and pricing of various commodities and products.
4) Companies who do business globally will benefit.
5) BRICs economies in the next 40 years will be larger than the G6 in US dollar terms! Currently they are worth less than 15%.
6) Russia could overtake UK, Germany, France and Italy.
7) China could overtake Japan, Germany and lastly by 2039 – the US.
8. Of the current G6 countries, only two may remain in the G6 – US and Japan.
If the report is correct, then the BRICs countries will straddle the world in less than 50 years and Europe will be left behind.
Related Reading: Britain is not taking advantage of India’s investment opportunities
The glory days of globalisation
Indian Real Estate booming
Getting rid of corruption in India
India produces more engineers than the US?
The increasing list of Indian Forbes billionnaires is a sign
Highest salaries in India in 2007
People’s world view has altered
Slum Rehab project in jeopardy
Mumbai envisions itself a slum free city by 2015
Street children are deprived of an education
Outsourcing moving to smaller cities in India, like Kolkata
A wide angle view of India 
Raj,
I meant cultures, not countries. Realist view as described by Ravi, to my understanding, is the most pursued in Greek culture (and Italian Renainsance). Not that it didn’t occur in other cultures, but that in other cultures, other views are more central and typical. In my limitted knowledge, Jewish and Indian traditions are much closer to the relativist view (so is the Buddhist view if it can be considered seperate from the Indian tradition at that level).
And besides, it isn’t that relativists can’t do science. They do science just as well. In a certain sense, the debate between Bohr and Einstein was a sort of like that between the two camps. But Bohr was still a first rank physicist. (Of course, his view might not have been strictly similar to ours, but its deviation from the standard realist view is evident. So are those of many of the Quantum Mechanicsists’ .)
Raj,
In the 70’s, the school teachers might reject religion, but by my time, religions have been coming back strong. There are Daoist and Buddhist schools and Confucian institutions now. In fact I am reading Daoist books by authors born in the 70’s.
By the way, I believe Einstein was a realist like Ravi said, but I am not sure about Newton. When he poblished “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, he was criticized for not giving an explanation about what gravity really was. If I recall my reading rather correctly, he in reply said something like, it wasn’t supposed to tell what gravity was, or, this wasn’t his concern, something like that.
Also, if I am not mis-impressed, the later generations of physicists consists of fewer and fewer realists probably due to the astonishment by the arbitrariness of theoretical construction. For example, the superstring theory, M theory seem very “un-real”.
Guqin,
Did that have anything to do with the change of leadership-from Mao Zeodong to Deng Xiaoping ?
(I am not sure of the spelling of their names)
It must have.
Guqin,
I believe many people already knew/know the truth about everything in this universe or atleast how things work in the universe.But they never presented it in the form of religion.You can also say that Buddhist philosophy is not a religion in that sense.
I believe children are very lucky indeed.Adults do not think too highly of children’s stories and/or fairy tales.But I believe many such stories are as good as Buddhist philosophy when it comes to presenting the truth.
I know what I am writing may sound laughable to some people.But let us take two examples.The Harry Potter books and Alice in Wonderland.I believe they contain the answers to many,many mysteries in the universe.I believe both J.K.Rowling and Lewis Caroll (Charles Dodgson) know/knew much of the truth about the universe,if not all of it.But they deliberately chose to present it to children and not adults because adults,with their stupid preconceived notions about the truth would have laughed at the authors or dismissed them as lunatics.Indeed many adults have dismissed the books as non-sense.
But children (and children at heart) have a much more open mind.They do not reject something because it seems unbelievable.They are always willing to learn more.They have an incredible appetite to know more about the universe.So they eagerly lap up the books.But because the authors have chosen to present it in an entertaining manner,the true meaning may not dawn on the readers.I believe the books have to be read with a scientific mind to understand the deep truth hidden in them.
Ravi,
Please no need for an apology, my friend. I apologize if my earlier comment was a strong one. In general, I don’t like labels as I find them restrictive and they conveniently box people in (unless someone agrees to be boxed in 🙂 ). Thanks for the explanation of the terms and also the reading suggestion (Jared Diamond). I’m still not sure that I’d call myself a strict relativist, though I agree with some points of relativists as you outlined.
I am in no way diminishing the value and contribution of science, but what is an asset in many instances (an experiment repeated and replicated has to give the same results) can be a hindrance in other instances, IMO. Then there is the instance of evidence-based medicine (like Acupuncture) for which science hasn’t yet found a model to explain the results.
Amit,
If you were refering to Acupuncture as Chinese Acupuncture, the explanation is in Chinese philosophy, especially Daoism, but not in form of “model”, Chinese philosophy does not consider any model, that is, any theory valid. With the language barrier, it is nearly immpossible to summerize its principle in short here. But it is clear that Acupuncture isn’t just a result of unguided experience for no one in the first place would pick up a needle and stick it into the body if having no anticipation of good results.
Raj,
Unsure if Rowling knows how the universe works, but I am with you regarding that the student (“children”) mind set is the most spiritual one. I go even one step further, the infant. I once put up a comment here claiming there is no devide between Atheism and Theism, but got no responses ( I thought I would at least get stronge disagreements from Indian commentators), let me find it and quote it below since it echos some of your thoughts:
Here it is, I changed a few words:
The divide between Theism and Atheism is artificial. Faith is only a fancier word for Trust. If one completely, truely trusts the world, the universe (that is completely, truely let go the insecurity), one is automatically in the meditative mode (almost by definition). This is the state of the infant (not even the child, but only the infant). “Return to infancy” said Lao Zi and Christ.
When one thinks of God or Buddha, God and Buddha automatically turn against him by standing between him and the universe. One shouldn’t need to trust the universe through God or Buddha. Religion divide and especially Theism / Atheism devide are a result of the inability of this direct trust, hence people must do it through different media.
Guqin,
Thanks. Yes, I was referring to Chinese Acupuncture, and how it has proven to work, but modern/Western science cannot so far explain how and why it works based on their model of human physiology.
Guqin
Newton is also a realist like Einstein. Unlike Einstein newton never pursued his experiments in Galilean way but he did thought experiments i.e. Kantian experiments. I would like to mention these four types of experiments that scientists perform.
1.Baconian (What happens if we do this and if we do that…kind of experiments)
2.Aristotelian (Twisting experiments to match one’s theory)
3.Galilean (Observation – Experiment – Analysis – Conclusion)
4.Kantian (thought experiments)
Thought experiments are categorized as young or relatively new concept but there were instances in 19th century that some scientists performed Kantian experiments not knowingly how to categorize them. Probably the way Newton responded to his discovery was his inability to distinguish his experiments from the regular ones and lacked proper explanation of Kantian way of experiments.
It is less important if someday “science” will find a model for acupuncture, but it is more meaningful that at least western form of science (there is my X Y format) can not generate acupuncture. Same way, philosophy that generated acupuncture can not generate Newtonian physics or the like. So, one must be careful with what sciense should be. As it seems to me, Relativist / Realist divide is still an internal phenonmenon of western (Greek) tradition. It is the dominance of west science that has made realist / relativist divide an issue among non-westerners, just like Democrasy / Communism devide has become an issue among eastern countries due to the political dominance ot the west.
Philosophically, if one can not generate X independtly, then one can never validly explain it. Therefore I tend to think western science can never explain acupuncture.
Amit
I thought you were offended but really relieved to know that you are not I am glad that you get to understand the terms realist and relativist from my limited writing skills. I have read those concepts from a book written by an English author. I seriously doubt my way of explaining those terms without leading to any misunderstanding. It took a lot of time for me to understand and distinguish them. You were not diminishing the value of science but your way is different from mine and I respect your choice.
I m not much into medicine, biology whatever related to it, honestly I have no idea what to say regarding Evidence Based Medicine.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indias_economic_miracle_losing_its_lustre_Analysts/articleshow/2850891.cms
The next Finanance Minister will be under pressure to sustain the growth…lets see
Guqin,
Thanks for your response and for pasting your own lines from a different post.First,let me clarify my views on Buddhist philosophy.
You mentioned “God or Buddha”.I do not regard the Buddha as God.Buddha never asked anyone to regard him as God,nor did he himself believe that there was or is a God.I am not a follower of any Buddhist sect that regards the Buddha as God or indeed any other Buddhist sect.I believe in Buddhist philosophy only because it does not contradict my religion-science.
The only reason why I believe in Buddhist philosophy is because the Buddha asked people to seek and experience the truth for themselves.Infact,he specifically told people not to believe in what he said just because he himself said it.He even told people not to believe a word of what he said,but to find out the truth by seeking it themselves.That is the main reason I find Buddhist philosophy so attractive.It is just like it should be.It is just like science.
Guqin,
I agree with what you said about the infant state.The mind can is at its best when it does not believe in certain ridiculous things.
To learn things,one will have to first acknowledge that there is a need to learn,and then perform the actual act of learning.By assuming that one knows everything,or assuming that certain ridiculous things will explain everything is utter foolishness.Science is superior to anything else in this aspect.Science does not think that it knows everything nor does it believe that certain ridiculous things will explain everything.That explains why science is unstoppable.Science is unstoppable ! Science is progressive ! Science is the future !
It is not the job of science to explain how or why acupunture works ! I don’t understand why science should even bother to explain how or why acupuncture works.I do not have anything against acupuncture or any other form of alternative medicine,so please forgive me if I sound a bit harsh but I do not want science to waste its time and resources trying to explain why or how acupuncture or anything else works.
Science already has enough problems to solve and all its resources must be harnessed to solve the problems caused by human greed and human belief in ridiculous things that is the cause of all the problems that the world is facing at the moment.Science must concentrate on destroying backwardness and savagery.Science should not veer off its path and try to explain how or why something else works.That is not the job of science ! The job of science is to become the absolute truth and it should not deviate from its job in the least !
Vish,
I hope the next Finance Minister,whoever he or she turns out to be,concentrates on “inclusive growth” rather than just “sustaining the rate of growth”.
Guqin,
On reading my own words again,I think my tone sounds a bit harsh with regard to science and acupunture.
I sincerely apologise,my friend,since I think acupuncture and other alternate forms of medicine do have their specific purposes.I think we should not ignore alternate forms of medicine.I was just trying to mention that we should not try to associate acupuncture or anything else with science.
Regarding my comment to Vish,I think Indians have to take a cue from your country.The People’s Republic of China has achieved impressive growth rates over the years and I think your leaders want to concentrate on making that growth inclusive to avoid social unrest.I think we in India have to do the same.
Raj, Vish,
Thanks for your very concise and pertinent comments. The only thing you may wish to review is to substitute the word “development” for “growth”. The two mean very different things, as even an economist of the common or garden variety will tell you. What we urgently need is development which narrows the gap between the haves and the have-nots, not the kind of callous and brutalising growth that we are presently embarked upon.
It is precisely this obsession with “growth” at the cost of equitable development that has led us seriously astray since the beginning of liberalisation. The fact that poverty is no longer fashionable to discuss in the media and at cocktail parties does not mean that it has gone away or reduced. And with the less privileged majority mustering its forces, the backlash will, I fear, be rapid and vicious.
Both our PM and our FM are seasoned economists who, notwithstanding the political compulsions under which they make their public pronouncements, are aware of the facts. They also have a phalanx of bright Indian economists whose brains they can pick. We don’t need the likes of Robert Prior-Wandesforde (I don’t mean him disrespect) to tell us what is wrong.
Raj,
This is OT, but I am intrigued by your choice of logo — a species on its way to extinction in India. 🙂
Vivek,
Yes,you are right.I think “development” would be a better word to use than “growth”.Equitable and inclusive development is the need of the hour.Even I am worried about the backlash that continued growth of the brutalising kind can trigger.
About my logo,I simply love cats ! And I think tigers are the perfect cats.I sometimes think that cats (big and small) are at the top of the evolutionary pyramid and not apes.
Raj,
//I sometimes think that cats (big and small) are at the top of the evolutionary pyramid and not apes.//
You’ll probably find most simians in agreement with you — other than the ones that have evolved beyond recognition and are responsible for most of the ills of the world that they have appropriated for themselves. 🙂
And I think tigers are the perfect cats.I sometimes think that cats (big and small) are at the top of the evolutionary pyramid and not apes.
I think of different species as interconnected in a web of life, rather than a pyramid model with top and bottom – which is along the same lines as obsession with “growth rate”, being a winner or number one etc. Evolution is not a race with species competing to be at the top.
Amit,
In broad ecological terms you are right about the Web of Life. But the food chain is in fact a pyramidal hierarchy of feeders, with a few powerful predator species at the apex (usually one in any given ecosystem). As you go down the tiers of the pyramid, the numbers of species as well the populations within each species increase, and their predatory strength declines. The largest number of species is normally at the base.
The explanation above is simplified. Reality is more complex in the lower layers, with different food chains at work simultaneously, both vertically and horizontally.
And there are exceptions too, which account for carrion feeders, herbivorous giants etc., but these occupy different hierarchies and webs.
Raj,
Buddha was indeed very cool.
I didn’t think you were harsh at all. It was about a view, acupuncture is un-important.
Vivek, yes I am aware of that. 🙂
I am not sure if I should believe in Darwin. The food chain can be a surface event driven by a more general principle. For one thing, Darwin can not explain how organism is originated in the first place (Spieces are “types” of organism only); for the other, Darwinism has much negative effects in other intellectual areas.
Also, Creation is gaining popularity again. Some mathematicians have worked concepts such as “irreducible complexity” which seem to be challenging Darwinism seriously.
I tend to think the history of Darwinism is similar to that of Newtonian physics: D and N were aware of the pratical and trivial nature of their theories, but people were astonished by the expanatary power of their theories and generalized them and which caused profound consequcences.
Guqin,
Thanks.Yes,Buddha was very cool indeed 🙂
Darwin cannot explain how organisms originate but science can and has done so.
I hope humans never become so crazy as to adopt creationary theories as the correct one.
Science has?
Creation can be as well taken as a scientific principle without involvement of God. If explaining the origin of life is taken “scientifically”, biology in theory must be consistent with fundamental physics, that is, must make sense on the quantum level, the least to say. But then one must consider the odd properties of the quantum world, which seems more creationary than evolutionary. If I am not mistaking, biologists are still working within the framework of determinism which is already out of fashion with the physicists.
I tried to avoid all these “ism” or “ist”, but I found that I couldn’t even speak without those words. I can only blame the English language.
I am with Amit, these “ist”s and “ism”s are just boxing in people or ideas.
Vivek, when those at the top of the pyramid die, their bodies are consumed by microbes and return back to the soil. So maybe the microbes should be at the top of the pyramid, no? 😉
Correction:
“Atomism and determinism” not just “determinism”.
It isn’t a linear pyramid but a full circle. “Food circle” (or cycle?) but “Food chain”.
Guqin,
Here is the link for the origin of life . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
. . . and here is the link for the creation myth . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Guqin,
My previous comment went into moderation because of the links in them.
Please check this out by typing it or copy-pasting it in the address bar of your browser
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
and also this one about the creation myth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Both biologists and physicists work in the field of science.They do not contradict each other.Only people who believe in certain creationary theories contradict the scientists.
@Guqin, @Raj,
A Chinese and an Indian — both presumably non-Christian — debating Creationism! Now I’ve heard everything!! 🙂 To the list of links provided, I’d like to add http://www.answers.com/topic/scopes-trial
@Guqin,
//… biologists are still working within the framework of determinism which is already out of fashion with the physicists…//
You may find it interesting to read a short, gripping book called “Flanagan’s Version” (Knopf, 1989) by Denis Flanagan, which anticipated your observation in the 1980s and discussed it in passing.
@Amit,
Your idea about microbes is absolutely unimpeachable if we can visualise a pyramid in the absence of gravity — shorn of the notions of “up” and “down”. As The Book has promised, “the meek shall inherit the earth” 😉
Raj also used the term “evolutionary pyramid” and not “food pyramid.” Not sure if the results of evolution can be likened to a pyramid – more like the branches of a tree.
Vivek, now you’re mixing gravity and biology. 🙂
I think Guqin mentioned it in an earlier comment, and I prefer to see the predator-prey relationship as a closed circle rather than a pyramid, though the pyramid model is fine when considering the number of species at different levels. Ultimately, everything is destroyed and returns to the soil to sustain new life – the trinity model. 😉
Raj and Vivek,
Thanks for the links ( I am still going through ) and the book (quite surprised that it was written that long ago). In the mean time, I should point out that I used the term “creation” in a natural (avoiding the word “scientific” here ) but Christain (or religious) way. Then scientifically, it means, once the stages of life are reduced to the irreducible level, scientists should be happy to accept “they just come out from nowhere” as the final answer. “Nowhere” doesn’t necessarily mean God.
Which seems un-acceptable to scientists. But the physists are accepting principles like this on the quantum level, which is supposedly more fundamentally that the chemical level, which in turn is more fundamental than the biological level.
The key question is how far atomism and determinism can still go with biology when they both have hit dead ends in fundamental physics. Sooner or later, biologists must face the question “how conciousness is created” (notice the word “created” here?…). It is courious that it is the phycists arriving at the puzzlement of conciousness first…
However, thanks again. Let me read more first…
“I hope the next Finance Minister,whoever he or she turns out to be,concentrates on “inclusive growth” rather than just “sustaining the rate of growth”.”
Inclusive growth – Does it mean that the ‘masses’ will have to become ‘consumers’ and watch the presentation of ‘annual budget’ or the ‘sensex’ keeping their fingers crossed? How the FM will get support from India Inc for any other type of ‘inclusive growth’?
Welfare is something that will not be accepted by the India Inc….which means somebody will lose his place in the Forbes list..
Vish,
// Welfare is something that will not be accepted by the India Inc….which means somebody will lose his place in the Forbes list //
Well said ! Well said ! Well said !
I really love to read your Spartan comments ! (I admire Spartans for their famed brevity of speech)
You pack quite a serious punch in the few lines of each comment that you post ! 🙂
Vish,
//Inclusive growth – Does it mean that the ‘masses’ will have to become ‘consumers’ and watch the presentation of ‘annual budget’ or the ’sensex’ keeping their fingers crossed?//
That is precisely why I argued for “development” rather than “growth”.
Vivek,
Thanks for that link.Yes,I am referring to the ridiculous things that people believe in almost every country of the world and that includes,but is certainly not limited to the West.
Whenever science gains the upper hand,civilisation flourishes ! Whenever blind belief gains the upper hand,civilisation decays ! If the decay is allowed to continue,there is no hope for the Earth !
Guqin,
Science is science ! The “ists” within science are scientists first and then anything else.And I do not understand why consciousness should be the preserve of some people alone.Consciousness belongs to science as much as it belongs to anyone else !
Hello, I am a fresh blogger on this blog. I am economics enthusiast and would like to enter into debates and discussions for understanding the topic properly. Strong economy does not necessarily mean GDP growth. It means how many indians have got a purchasing power to carry on basic life needs comfortably. When more no of people are under `discomfort` zone, there is likely hood of `frustration`. India @ 2050 will be facing many problems of frustrated population unless a good corrective action taking into consideration `purchasing power` is taken. A ray of hope is there with one unique proposal.
India along with Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, and South Korea will be the within the seven largest countries in the World, however statistics show that the order of the world will be as follows
China, US, Brazil, India, Mexico, Russia, South Korea.
I’m not saying that something might change and India will be the second largest county in the world by 2050, but studies show that the most likely order will be the one i just put there. Honestly i think all of these countries at one point will get a chance to be the first.
we shall over come one day … jai hind .. jai india
You forgot a few things. Fist in 2050 there will be three giants China, USA and India, those will be by far the richest countries in the world. Apart from BRIC theres something called the BIG 6, and that consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico and South Korea. Those are the big guns of developing countries, the order of the world will be, (in 2050)
1.- China 2.-USA 3.-India 4.-Brazil 5.- Mexico 6.- Russia.
Its looking good for all of us.
china and usa would flush down the drain unless the one learns about quality consciousness and the other learns about keeping its economy intact. india, though conservative and slow in its approach, would draw on its inherent qualities of sincerity and self-respect to avoid incursionist routes while honestly and proudly supplying products and services which are dependable. russia will have to get over its communist lacunas and turn around thus taking time. brazil will have to learn what maturity is all about. mexico is no immediate threat. south korea…well…there is a possibility of some competition here but if daewoo is how they handle their business then hyundai might also go out soon while tatas and birlas and infosys and wipro etc.etc. gain footage in the world. this is called…character. but we may require an original indian ethos/pathos respecting ruler at the top.
No one’s talking about a threat. Let me tell you something. The USA is the giant now, and its pollicies, it’s pollitics are extreamelly flawed, and aging and obesity are huge public concerns, that didn’t stop it, did it? Listen, theres very little culture about this emerging economy thing. In america (the continent, now what you call USA) There are 4 giants. The USA with 11 trillion making it the first place in economy, Brazil with 1.5 trillion making it the eighth place in economy, Canada with 1.4 trillion making it the tenth place in economy and mexico with 1.1 trillion making it the thirteenth place in economy. The next richest country in America is Argentina with 315 billion dollars. And no countries are inmediate threats, and they need to learn how to mannage whats coming to them, but there is no doubt in the mind of respected economists all over the world, that these six countries are going to be ruleing soon.
agreed! they are rich now. but there is an emerging ‘bric’ with three nuclear powers contained within. none of those countries mentioned, barring usa is a nuke power. bric conclave can take on the world say by 2050 since these nations have high class technology in almost all fields, highly skilled technical staff, superior military power (including nuke power), space research power and above all a vibrant ‘manpower’.
That’s true. Mexico’s the leader of 4 or 5 countries against nuclear weapons. But obviously no countries are gonna give up the nucs. However, there will be a dramatic change. Now, there is ONE world leader, the USA, because it is MASSIVELY richer than the second one down, USA 11 trillion, Japan 5 trillion. What Changes 2050?
China 50 trillion, USA 35 trillion, India 34 trillion, Brazil 13 trillion Mexico 12 trillion, Russia 10 trillion. What determines that they will all be world leaders is that, even though China has Much more money than India and the USA, and The USA and India have much more money than Mexico, Brazil and Russia, their economy is large enough they place themselves in a world leader position. Thats a good thing, because now there are six countries calling the shots, and not just one. It’s healthier.
emilio…i respect your knowing views, dear frined. balanced and willing good for the world. but the world isn’t that. the first and second wws taught us that. might and manpower wud call the shots tomorrow. too much is at stake. for an example: the world crude prices are now dependant on ‘speculative shots’ where some make trillions at the expense of others. the us who went on war against vietnam/korea/afghanistan/iraq and god knows whom all…why are they silent on ‘speculations’ wrt wolrd resourses? so…this wolrd is shit and there is no one with a culture…no one who would say i would co-operate with six others to give stability to this world. they are all there to make the sun shine for them!
It’s true, but it’s not a decision the countries are going to make. Its not like china is gonna say, Hey, i think i’ll let the USA, India, Brazil, Mexico and Russia lead with me. Its that those countries are rich enough that they place themselves as world leaders. Hopefully having more than one world leader will turn the world around, and make less wars, and less violence. But as you say, maybe those six countries will govern just like we have been governed all these years, and nothing will change. But its better to wish well than to hope for worse.
forgot to mention…rich is one who has offsprings. japan is already old and india exports manpower to japan to take care of their old and ailing…whither usa?
True! All of these countries are young, and the g20 of 2010, have a horrible age problem, especially Japan, but also the USA. We have everything the g10 had before they became the rich developed countries they are now.
No one will agree but according to my studies in 2050 it will be
1) India
2) China
3) USA
4) Brazil
5) Indonesia
6) Pakistan
surprized about India & Pakistan?
Wait & watch ! Time will give you answer !