Gujarat GDP growth and Narendra Modi's economic record

truthbetold wrote:Gc,  
the whole point of this discussion to talk about numbers. Throwing numbers to back your pov is the process.
when a single number proves the point why draw hundreds of charts.
India Gdp growth 2004 to 2012 - 178%
Gujarat. Gdp growth 2004 to 2012 - 204%
A Gdp growth differential of 26%.
Case closed.

there are no new insights in your numbers. you've calculated total growth rate whereas carvaka's original post gives the compound average growth rate, in essence your number averaged over the period.

truthbetold wrote:Gc,  
the whole point of this discussion to talk about numbers. Throwing numbers to back your pov is the process.
when a single number proves the point why draw hundreds of charts.
India Gdp growth 2004 to 2012 - 178%
Gujarat. Gdp growth 2004 to 2012 - 204%
A Gdp growth differential of 26%.
Case closed.

TBT, as I said before, nominal GDP numbers compared across many years tends to significantly overstate growth when you have significant inflation, like we do in India. This is why I compared the real GDP numbers for the same time period -- that was the very first chart on this thread. 

You seem to prefer cumulative growth for the entire period, instead of a CAGR. That is no problem. If you take the real GDP numbers starting in 2002, and translate them to cumulative growth, we get 141% for Gujarat, and 139% in Maharashtra. That difference is hardly worth labeling "unmatched in Indian politics." 

truthbetold wrote:I think it dishonest to refuse to acknowledge gujarats economic success and steady performance.

I acknowledged the success at the very outset in this thread, and stated that Modi deserves credit for running a steady ship. But my contention is whether his performance is head and shoulders above the rest; I have demonstrated that it is not.

truthbetold wrote:Go to wikipedia data link above and do a cumulative growth analysis.
India Gdp grew by 178% between 2004 and 2012.
Gujarat Gdp grew by 204% in the same period. That is a difference of 26%.
If we do similar analysis between States Gujarat would ahead among all large States.

Let me, for the moment, play with nominal (not real) GDP numbers like you have done, and do the state by state analysis you suggest. Here are the results of a quick analysis. I am stating them as CAGRs, because that is more reflective of what is normally understood by GDP growth rates. The source for this data is the Wikipedia page that you cited earlier. I have ordered the states in descending of nominal GDP as of 2011. 


This again bears out my contention that Gujarat has not been the breakout performer for most of Modi's tenure that his supporters make it out to be. I find this picture less reliable because the data are nominal, not real, GDP; but the point remains the same.

Idéfix wrote:

This again bears out my contention that Gujarat has not been the breakout performer for most of Modi's tenure that his supporters make it out to be. I find this picture less reliable because the data are nominal, not real, GDP; but the point remains the same.

Great....can you now draw a similar chart on the performances by MT Sonia Mata, Prince Rahul, PC?

Nitish, CBN, N Patnaik, and Low command 1, Low command2, and anybody else. Also who would you like us all to vote?...

BUt, remember as a common man, I would like to vote for a "winner"

So why is modi's Eco comic success discredited if mh tn ap k perform well? All those States have booming it exports or mumbai. Modi's success is acknowledged bu Gujarat people.

I will do cumulative analysis after a little while.

The following is not in dispute:
Modi is among the top notch economic performers in Indian States.
modi's economic performance is consistent.
Modi's performance in the last 4 years is far better than India's growth rate.

So the dispute is only about whether Modi is economic superman or not.
my point is opposition to Modi should be based on his hindutva agenda but he is well qualified based on economic performance. I can understand Congress efforts to discredit modi's economic record but I see no objective reasons for economists and intellectuals denying modi's economic success.

Clinton's weakness down under was well known. He disrespected oval office by dropping his pants.
Bush's intellectual limitations were well known. We gave 8 years and he failed to grasp the nuances of weapons of mass destruction.
we know modi's tendency to scapegoat minorities. My sense is by the end of modi's regime India will regret making him pm. He will either cause harm or fail to stop harm.
The goodnews is that the Hindu is predicting close to 200 seats for non Congress non bjp parties.

truthbetold wrote:So why is modi's Eco comic success discredited if mh tn ap k perform well? All those States have booming it exports or mumbai. Modi's success is acknowledged bu Gujarat people.

I will do cumulative analysis after a little while.

The following is not in dispute:
Modi is among the top notch economic performers in Indian States.
modi's economic performance is consistent.
Modi's performance in the last 4 years is far better than India's growth rate.

So the dispute is only about whether Modi is economic superman or not.
my point is opposition to Modi should be based on his hindutva agenda but he is well qualified based on economic performance. I can understand Congress efforts to discredit modi's economic record but I see no objective reasons for economists and intellectuals denying modi's economic success.

You are misunderstanding my point. I will try one more time and see if it works; otherwise the numbers can speak for themselves. 

The argument is advanced for Modi is that he has done a superlative job in managing the Gujarat economy. Even you, who opposes him for PM, said a few posts ago, that his performance is "unmatched." I am demonstrating that the data do not support this claim. His performance is hardly unmatched. If other states are growing at rates close to Gujarat's, then Modi's performance is being matched by those states. If you argue that other states have this or that, well, Gujarat also has a lot going for it. It is not like Modi is magically producing GDP growth out of nothing. 

That does not mean I am saying Modi sucks at managing the economy. No, he does not. He deserves credit for doing a good job. But his success does not look out of the ordinary when compared to the true peers. Modi's numbers look great if compared to laggard states, but they look just OK when compared to the peers. 

If you look at growth as more than GDP, i.e. when you look at the things that make up the standard of living, and compare the Human Development Index improvements across states, growth in Gujarat lagged the growth in the rest of India at least until 2008. That is, for the first six years of his eleven-year rule, Modi's performance in achieving all-round development was weak. Perhaps things have gotten better since, but we simply do not have enough data* to think so. We also know that while Gujarat grew GDP faster than India for those first six years, its overall development was slower than national average. I don't know if Modi did anything to reverse that disconnect. We know that Gujarat continued to grow GDP faster than national average; but we don't know if it caught up to the national average on HDI. Based on all this, my view is that Modi is not the development superhero is made out to be. The above-average GDP growth he delivered did not translate into even average growth in human development. 

Yesterday, you positioned the choice in this election as between Secularism vs. Economic Growth. The data in this thread show that that is a false choice. Modi's record on economic growth is not exceptional; so we won't be choosing secularism over economic growth if we vote against Modi. 

* If anyone has the HDI numbers for various states beyond 2008, I will be happy to incorporate them in my analysis. The last HDI report for India, which came out in 2011, does not.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

This again bears out my contention that Gujarat has not been the breakout performer for most of Modi's tenure that his supporters make it out to be. I find this picture less reliable because the data are nominal, not real, GDP; but the point remains the same.

Great....can you now draw a similar chart on the performances by MT Sonia Mata, Prince Rahul, PC?

Nitish, CBN, N Patnaik, and Low command 1, Low command2, and anybody else. Also who would you like us all to vote?...

BUt, remember as a common man, I would like to vote for a "winner"

The chart for Yuvaraj has already been drawn. Here (thanks to yogi): 

 

truthbetold wrote:The goodnews is that the Hindu is predicting close to 200 seats for non Congress non bjp parties.

That's good -- I hadn't seen that. Let me look it up.

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The goodnews is that the Hindu is predicting close to 200 seats for non Congress non bjp parties.

That's good -- I hadn't seen that. Let me look it up.

Mamta = 25

Jaya = 32

DMK + etc 8

Akali Dal = 8

NCP = 7

Patnaik - ABCDBJD = 12

Jagan = 15

CBN = 10

Commies = 35 (in total)

NC = 4

Nitish = 12

Mulayam = 20

Mayawati = 7

etc..etc.... It is NOT good. It is only nightmare... You are saying good bcz it will prevent BJP from getting power.. In other words any which way and whatever way to prevent BJP - bcz it is communal.. Now that is "SECULAR" and Unbiased approach.

Even if it had been Sushma or Jaitley or Advani, all otehr parties and non-BJP supporters would have still bad mouthed BJP - on some other ground. all other seemingly ingenious analaysis is to justify the inherent "intellectual" bias.

Modi is a dictator

Modi will control cabinet

Modi will take over BJP

Modi will make the entire BJP yes men

Modi will swallow RSS

Modi will finish off Muslims

Modi will finish off entire opposition.

Modi is bad...baaad.. baaaad.

Hahahahaha... guess the so called secullar people are just brainwashed into that line of thinking by none other than the CONmen and the Dynasty. Just read the list of fears and each one of them is true ONLY for congress.

At least in the case of Modi, things wont drag on beyond Modi's tenure. With Dynasty, it has been going on since independence and will continue for ever.

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

This again bears out my contention that Gujarat has not been the breakout performer for most of Modi's tenure that his supporters make it out to be. I find this picture less reliable because the data are nominal, not real, GDP; but the point remains the same.

Great....can you now draw a similar chart on the performances by MT Sonia Mata, Prince Rahul, PC?

Nitish, CBN, N Patnaik, and Low command 1, Low command2, and anybody else. Also who would you like us all to vote?...

BUt, remember as a common man, I would like to vote for a "winner"

The chart for Yuvaraj has already been drawn. Here (thanks to yogi): 

So your conclusion is Rahul is STILL better...bcz that is what the INtellectuals, elites, and other "learned and informed" people want and know what is good for the country....

Yeah right.

Please provide your alternatives along with performance criteria AND SUPPORT BASE with party backing.

Otherwise it is just Modi bashing in a different color (not that there is anything wrong with that).

This is like some refusing to eat every food that is offered without telling an alternative or choice, or an adult declining every job that comes his way without outlining what he wants and what are his skills.

I myself would prefer someone else - but finally, at least MODI is building his charisma to match and take on the Dynasty name - since Vajpayee. He is an autocrat but pretty sure, his own heavy handedness has enough enemies within the party to keep him on his toes and the RSS still holding some sway on him.The same cannot said of congress... every one of them is a chamcha, all decisions are referred to the "high Command" all dignitaries visit MT Sonia Mata, and even MMS defers all his decisions to her and the Prince.

hahaha...and as a self-proclaimed believer in democracy you decide which is better: Autocratic Modi with party control and opposition, or a dynasty that can tolerate no opposition (they are dismissed for anti-party activities), promoted only family members to control or govern...?

Idefix,
Who said modi's performance is superior to all others? Did you create that straw man?
You also attributed unmatched to me. I could not locate that.

My question was about gujarat's economic performance under Modi. Data clearly showed., gujaratwas among the top performing States of India.
Your fight with shaktiman is with other poster or with your dtrawman.

You agreed and then backed off consistent performance of Modi. Gdp numbers show that except for one year Modi has beaten Indian Gdp by a margin or was close to Gdp mark.

Modi wad also beating indian Gdp handsomely in 3 out of 4 years before2011.

You, Max and merlot feel a need to find data or use data to discredit modi's economic success. I am just saying data shows modi's success.

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,
Who said modi's performance is superior to all others? Did you create that straw man?
You also attributed unmatched to me. I could not locate that.

Here you said it:
Modi is no superman but his high level consistent performance is unmatched in Indian politics. Prove me wrong if you have data.

truthbetold wrote:You agreed and then backed off consistent performance of Modi. Gdp numbers show that except for one year Modi has beaten Indian Gdp by a margin or wad close to Gdp mark.

I thought -- thanks to all the great things I had read about Modi's economic performance -- that it was the truth. Before I looked into the numbers, that is. At every step of this analysis, my initial assumption was that the numbers will support the claims of Modiwallahs. But when I crunched the numbers, I was surprised to learn that it wasn't that great a performance. With respect to consistency: when I peeled the onion I found that in three of his nine years for which we have data (2004, 2006, and 2008) Gujarat's real GDP growth lagged the national average. See the chart below from an earlier post.


Two of those were substantial, not trivial, shortfalls; in 2004 the national average was 9.5% and Gujarat saw 6.0%, and in 2008 the national average was 8.4% with Gujarat clocking in 4.3%. For a six-year period between 2003 and 2009, each year of above-average performance was followed a year of below-average growth. Faced with this data, I could no longer accept the idea that Gujarat's performance consistently exceeded national average. The fact that I agreed with your idea that his performance was consistent until I looked at the data in detail reflects my inclination to give Modi all the credit that is due. The only credit I don't want to give him is what the numbers won't allow him.

Idéfix wrote: With respect to consistency: when I peeled the onion I found that in three of his nine years for which we have data (2004, 2006, and 2008) Gujarat's real GDP growth lagged the national average. See the chart below from an earlier post.


Two of those were substantial, not trivial, shortfalls; in 2004 the national average was 9.5% and Gujarat saw 6.0%, and in 2008 the national average was 8.4% with Gujarat clocking in 4.3%. For a six-year period between 2003 and 2009, each year of above-average performance was followed a year of below-average growth. Faced with this data, I could no longer accept the idea that Gujarat's performance consistently exceeded national average. The fact that I agreed with your idea that his performance was consistent until I looked at the data in detail reflects my inclination to give Modi all the credit that is due. The only credit I don't want to give him is what the numbers won't allow him.

Sorry...out of 10 years 2 years Gujarat lagged behind the national average and for 7 years it exceeded by a large margin. That in itself is a great performance - overall. Remember that Gujarat also had earthquakes, drought, and not to mention Central Congress is against the state for the last 9 years. Despite that 7 out of 10 years (far) ahead of national average. Unless you can show me another state that exceeded Gujarat's performance you lost the case against Modi. Plain and simple.

You forget the single most concern of Indians today is corruption. For someone who has served as CM for > 10 years, I have not heard any significant scam - compared to the other "great" CMs - Jaya, Mamata, Laloo, CBN, MK, even that Rajasthan dude. Also, no one can beat the current COngress Govt and the UPA in number of mega corruptions. Yeddy proved that he was just another swindler in just 5 years. Jagan/YSR set high standards for state leaders. Modi - ruling during the same period - avoided any such corruption charges.

That alone is sufficient to make BJP - and Modi specifically - superior to anyone else.

Contintuing to accuse Modi of 2002 carnage even after every investigation absolving him of responsibility is nothing short of hypocrisy on the part of those claiming to respect judiciary and fairness.

Do you have any graphs and data on corruption charges of various "kingpins" of Indian politicis? Let us see that.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote: With respect to consistency: when I peeled the onion I found that in three of his nine years for which we have data (2004, 2006, and 2008) Gujarat's real GDP growth lagged the national average. See the chart below from an earlier post.


Two of those were substantial, not trivial, shortfalls; in 2004 the national average was 9.5% and Gujarat saw 6.0%, and in 2008 the national average was 8.4% with Gujarat clocking in 4.3%. For a six-year period between 2003 and 2009, each year of above-average performance was followed a year of below-average growth. Faced with this data, I could no longer accept the idea that Gujarat's performance consistently exceeded national average. The fact that I agreed with your idea that his performance was consistent until I looked at the data in detail reflects my inclination to give Modi all the credit that is due. The only credit I don't want to give him is what the numbers won't allow him.

Sorry...out of 10 years 2 years Gujarat lagged behind the national average and for 7 years it exceeded by a large margin. That in itself is a great performance - overall. Remember that Gujarat also had earthquakes, drought, and not to mention Central Congress is against the state for the last 9 years.  Despite that 7 out of 10 years (far) ahead of national average. Unless you can show me another state that exceeded Gujarat's performance you lost the case against Modi.  Plain and simple.

You forget the single most concern of Indians today is corruption. For someone who has served as CM for > 10 years, I have not heard any significant scam - compared to the other "great" CMs - Jaya, Mamata, Laloo, CBN, MK, even that Rajasthan dude. Also, no one can beat the current COngress Govt and the UPA in number of mega corruptions. Yeddy proved that he was just another swindler in just 5 years. Jagan/YSR set high standards for state leaders. Modi - ruling during the same period - avoided any such corruption charges.

That alone is sufficient to make BJP - and Modi specifically - superior to anyone else.

Contintuing to accuse Modi of 2002 carnage even after every investigation absolving him of responsibility is nothing short of hypocrisy on the part of those claiming to respect judiciary and fairness.

Do you have any graphs and data on corruption charges of various "kingpins" of Indian politicis?  Let us see that.

When I used to review grants for NIH, we used to assign scores based on what the provided data indicated to some 15 members on the study section, not on what the applicant concluded from the data.

If Diggy puts in an application with fukular conclusions and/or unusually harsh criticism of opponents, his will be in the dust bin.

carvaka - -the question of modi's managerial capabilities and his role in gujarat's economic performance is a red herring created by his loud supporters. he should be rejected on the grounds of being autocratic and communally divisive. we shouldn't let his supporters change the subject, and keep them in a vice like grip of a narrowly constrained conversation.

having said that, i do appreciate the great pains you have taken and lengths you have gone to look carefully at the data.

TBT - I have no leanings one way or the other between BJP and Congress. Unfortunately there are significant economic problems in India today. One is led to choose between the lesser of two evils.
 
Corruption is rampant. The cost of living is getting bad. The currency is taking a beating. Inflation is getting worse. Interest rates are high. People are fed up with the status quo.
 
As I mentioned to Carvaka, we should look beyond just GDP and consider the standard of living (SOL)indicators in assessing performance. The closest to SOL we have in terms of figures is HDI and Carvaka's charts have been quite revealing in that regard. Gujarat has done well but nothing outstanding as many would like us to believe.
 
Personally I have no faith in Sonia-led administration. The concept of dynasty is scary. It is a joke to consider Rahul for PM. I am not crazy about Chidambaram. I am apprehensive about Modi. Wish I had a candidate I can strongly recommend.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:carvaka - -the question of modi's managerial capabilities and his role in gujarat's economic performance is a red herring created by his loud supporters. he should be rejected on the grounds of being autocratic and communally divisive. we shouldn't let his supporters change the subject, and keep them in a vice like grip of a narrowly constrained  conversation.

having said that, i do appreciate the great pains you have taken and lengths you have gone to look carefully at the data.

great pains he took to confirm that Modi and his Gujarat INDEED performed CONSISTENTLY better than all other states. Only thing he disproved was the claim by Modi's supporters that he was the superman and performed well in all years. But then, Digvijay and the others claim the same thing congress performance and MT Sonia ji, Prince Rahul, MMS. That is just politics. My challenge to the Pseudo-Islamic Secular people still remains: come up with a name who has performed better than Modi.

Communal and divisive?...if modi is all that, so were PVN, VP Singh, and Advani, and congress is the ultimate communal party. It perennially has to remind people that it is the secular party. Congress supporters have forgotten what freedom of speech means and any disagreement is construed as divisive. people should stop claiming to be for freedom of speech (anathema to Congress), respect for judiciary (repeated accusation of Modi) and democracy (Congress cannot even spell it), and openly support the communal, undemocratic, anti-national congress, and the "high command."

Upps: I think India deserves to have a change since the status quo is bad. That's why I used the Dhoti Analogy. Both sides have dirt and there is no third side in sight.

I was talking to my mother over the phone today. She was upset with the politics of both BJP and Congress in Karnataka. "Veetai perukkara velakkamaru nalladha illayanu pesama endha pattu kunjalam osathi nu sandai pottundu irukka." I broke out laughing.

goodcitizn wrote:Upps: I think India deserves to have a change since the status quo is bad. That's why I used the Dhoti Analogy. Both sides have dirt and there is no third side in sight.

I was talking to my mother over the phone today. She was upset with the politics of both BJP and Congress in Karnataka. "Veetai perukkara velakkamaru nalladha illayanu pesama endha pattu kunjalam osathi nu sandai pottundu irukka." I broke out laughing.

Both parties are corrupt and Inidan politics needs cleaning up - big time. Who can clean up the congress? MT Sonia ji? Prince rahul ? vadra? MMS? Diggy vijay ? nada...60 years is too long and NOTHING will change. BJP also needs change. Modi can provide that. But, Modi is an autocrat and can even be a dictator if he is in congress. Butm in BJP, the RSS, other BJP leaders will not hesitate to question him and oppose his policies (unlike the congress and the high command). So while the "divisive" and autocrat Moi can effect some changes in BJP and Government he will be kept under leash by others in the party and the RSS. he can try to do an Indira and split the BJP and build his own party/gang. But, that is not likely to happen. Besides, he has no known kids and not likely to pass on his wealth and power to his family members (that in itself is a HUGE plus given our experience with the Dynasty). The only good thing about Jaya, Mayawati, mamta, and Modi is that these strong, dictatorial characters have no OFFICIAL kids/spouses.

All the graphs and data are subject to a variety of interpretation - much like the academic research papers. Finally, perception and daily bread win the votes in the end. The educated will vote along their "well-established" and prejudiced minds.

Idefix,
the numbers discussion took many turns over the past three days. So let me restate.
1. First and foremost, I join the chorus of thanks for your outstanding effort to collate and analyze and present them in colorgul charts. That helped elevate this discussion to a higher level.
2. Your arguments are not for anyone single poster but multitude of opinions expressed here. On occassion your emphasis on a pov may cause clash between your explanation and other pov.
3. Strictly limited to my pov, numbers prove Gujarat had a successful economic growth under modi's rule. He is consistent over the years. The fact that others States did well around the same period did not take away from modi's performance.

thank you for the colourful charts. they show clearly that gujarat's gdp growth rate was the highest among india's large states. highest is exceptional. 
 
there is a lesson to be learnt here: if you are the chief minister, stop interfering in private enterprise; merely be a remover of obstacles, and if you can, improve the infrastructure. 
 
modi has disqualified himself from being india's prime minister for one overwhelming reason: he is an inciter of murderous communal violence. 
 
do continue to produce and post multicoloured charts, but leave the analysis and the drawing of conclusions to less biased and more honest people.
 
yes, we did notice that, in your chart on "large" states, the only states/territories with higher gdp growth rates than gujarat are uttarakhand and delhi, whose populations are only 10 and 16 million, respectively.

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:thank you for the colourful charts. they show clearly that gujarat's gdp growth rate was the highest among india's large states. highest is exceptional. 
 
EXACTLY MY POINT

there is a lesson to be learnt here: if you are the chief minister, stop interfering in private enterprise; merely be a remover of obstacles, and if you can, improve the infrastructure. 
 
KOMBOLETELY AGREE

modi has disqualified himself from being india's prime minister for one overwhelming reason: he is an inciter of murderous communal violence. 
 
DISAGREE. WHO DISQUALIFIED HIM? RAJIV FAMILY KILLED 3000 SIKHS. IF THAT FAMILY IS QUALIFIED SO IS MODI. IF HE CAN BE LEGALLY a CM, HE CAN BE LEGALLY A PM.

do continue to produce and post multicoloured charts, but leave the analysis and the drawing of conclusions to less biased and more honest people.

LIKE ME....

 
yes, we did notice that, in your chart on "large" states, the only states/territories with higher gdp growth rates than gujarat are uttarakhand and delhi, whose populations are only 10 and 16 million, respectively.

THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS" A field invented to deceive common folks.

Thanks for proving that

I AM RIGHT, I AM VERY RIGHT, and I AM SO VERY RIGHT.

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
modi has disqualified himself from being india's prime minister for one overwhelming reason: he is an inciter of murderous communal violence. 
 

 
Everyone knows who incited the 1986 sikh riots where more than 3000 sikhs were massacred after Mrs. Gandhi's murder. The person who commented something to the effect of 'when a big tree falls, the smaller saplings are bound to get crushed' became the PM of india.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=547173438652571&set=a.105470809489505.4632.100000797581709&type=1&theater

Jm,
Gdp is a dynamic measurement. It changes over time. An entity could exhibit highest in a range of values due to random factors involved behind these numbers. Conceptulizing highest is the same as exceptional is short sighted and incorrect analysis. You could characterize gujarats Gdp numbers as exceptional by adding other explanations. But to conceptulize a random highest as exceptional is inadequate analysis.

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Go to wikipedia data link above and do a cumulative growth analysis.
India Gdp grew by 178% between 2004 and 2012.
Gujarat Gdp grew by 204% in the same period. That is a difference of 26%.
If we do similar analysis between States Gujarat would ahead among all large States.

Let me, for the moment, play with nominal (not real) GDP numbers like you have done, and do the state by state analysis you suggest. Here are the results of a quick analysis. I am stating them as CAGRs, because that is more reflective of what is normally understood by GDP growth rates. The source for this data is the Wikipedia page that you cited earlier. I have ordered the states in descending of nominal GDP as of 2011. 


This again bears out my contention that Gujarat has not been the breakout performer for most of Modi's tenure that his supporters make it out to be. I find this picture less reliable because the data are nominal, not real, GDP; but the point remains the same.

 Ho ho ho, AP under corruptestest regime did as good as the so called honestestest regime in Gujarat. What gives

confuzzled dude wrote:
 Ho ho ho, AP under corruptestest regime did as good as the so called honestestest regime in Gujarat. What gives

that is bcz our honest, unbiased George AKA idefix cut off the right side. then again, Andhra under-development began only in 2010...and in 10 years the 3 Andhras will compete with Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa.

Cd,
Here are my observations based on past two decades of Indian development.
1. A big entity like a nation or a state requires some fundamental policy shifts to attract investment and growth. Reduction of restrictions on entrepreneurs, reduction of license raj, stable govt and reasonable infrastructure are primary requirements. Ex: the dramatic swing in Indian economy after 1990s economic reforms and. Ap it movement since mid 1990s.
2. Economic policies take time to hold. The immediate beneficiaries will not be large enough to win elections. Ex: Congress loss in 1995.
3. Poor and corrupt govts cannot pull of good results in attracting new investments.
ex: laloo in bihar and cpm (terrible labor reputation).

Cont from earlier post:
4. Once the ship turned it will continue to move forward despite governments.ex: tn and mh keep making progress despite corrupt leadership.
5. Once the ship turned significant amount of turmoil can be tolerated. India witnessed its worst sectarian violence in Kashmir and multiple incidents of Islamic terrorism. Economy moved forward despite those man made intentional obstacles.
6. However sustained uncertainty is not good for growth as shown ap with the telangana movement. Ap lost more than few points in growth for t. Without t hyd would have beaten any other city in growth.
7. Does corrupt govt hurt anybody? Yes. The people. Growth policies succeed despite obstacles. But distribution of wealth ( subsidy activities) require active govt participation. Corruption punches holes in the process and robs the poor from getting the full benefits of the money spent. Liberals should be more concerned with corruption.

Repay post. Erased.

All this bar chart wankery still leads us to this: on one side you have a highly incompetent congress ruling party that presided over the biggest fuck up in recent history with its leaderless administration and institutionally corrupt ways. They should be kicked into oblivion just on the accusation of abysmal job performance. And the leader they're putting forth deserves to run a small panchayat, not the worlds second most populous country.

On the other hand you have an experienced regional leader that has proven himself to be decisive, strong and largely incorruptible with a proven record of strong governance and yet stays out of the way of pvt enterprise. Yes he came out of a right wing, extremist section of Indian politics but based on what he achieved in the past 11 yrs, it's easy for even the most ardent secularist blowhards to see he's moved to the center, got those old bjp guard under control and marginalized the extreme elements. Everyone who's a realist and not a stick-in-the-ass ideologue can see that he's far more qualified to be given a chance than the corrupt, incompetent and tired alternative.

But I admit that charts are good for discussion. They make us feel like we're participating too, much like fantasy football

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:thank you for the colourful charts. they show clearly that gujarat's gdp growth rate was the highest among india's large states. highest is exceptional. 

I disagree with you. Highest is not exceptional, when the next comparable state is 0.2% behind you, and the one after that is 0.3% behind you. The difference between 10.0% and 10.3% is not large enough to make the latter exceptional.
 

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:do continue to produce and post multicoloured charts, but leave the analysis and the drawing of conclusions to less biased and more honest people.
 
yes, we did notice that, in your chart on "large" states, the only states/territories with higher gdp growth rates than gujarat are uttarakhand and delhi, whose populations are only 10 and 16 million, respectively.

Did you notice the number of times I referred to Chattisgarh and Delhi in my conclusions which you consider biased? The correct answer is: zero! I referred in my conclusion to comparable states like Tamil Nadu and Mahrashtra.

I understand your burning desire to paint me as a bad guy. It is nevertheless amusing to see you accuse me of dishonesty for highlighting the facts about Modi's development record.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:So your conclusion is Rahul is STILL better...

Nonsense. The rest of your rant is best ignored.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
 Ho ho ho, AP under corruptestest regime did as good as the so called honestestest regime in Gujarat. What gives

that is bcz our honest, unbiased George AKA idefix cut off the right side.  then again, Andhra under-development began only in 2010...and in 10 years the 3 Andhras will compete with  Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa.

What does "cut off the right side" mean? Going by the metric TBT wanted to use (nominal GDP growth), we see that AP had 17.0% CAGR, and Gujarat had 17.3%. I have provided the data source, and you are welcome to expose any incorrect math.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Do you have any graphs and data on corruption charges of various "kingpins" of Indian politicis?  Let us see that.

My purpose in this thread was to test whether Modi's performance on development is head and shoulders above that of other regional leaders. The numbers shown in this thread speak for themselves in answering that question.

If you think corruption is more important than development, you are more than welcome to create graphs regarding corruption so we can have a similar, data-driven discussion.

Propagandhi711 wrote:All this bar chart wankery still leads us to this: on one side you have a highly incompetent congress ruling party that presided over the biggest fuck up in recent history with its leaderless administration and institutionally corrupt ways. They should be kicked into oblivion just on the accusation of abysmal job performance. And the leader they're putting forth deserves to run a small panchayat, not the worlds second most populous country.

On the other hand you have an experienced regional leader that has proven himself to be decisive, strong and largely incorruptible with a proven record of strong governance and yet stays out of the way of pvt enterprise. Yes he came out of a right wing, extremist section of Indian politics but based on what he achieved in the past 11 yrs, it's easy for even the most ardent secularist blowhards to see he's moved to the center, got those old bjp guard under control and marginalized the extreme elements. Everyone who's a realist and not a stick-in-the-ass ideologue can see that he's far more qualified to be given a chance than the corrupt, incompetent and tired alternative.

But I admit that charts are good for discussion. They make us feel like we're participating too, much like fantasy football

He's all that, and he's other things as well that make him unsavory. He hasn't really moved to the center; he has in fact reveled in image that he showed the Muslims of Gujarat their place, and he elevated to minister Maya Kodnani, who actively incited and led mobs in 2002 and was later convicted for it. I don't know what you mean by "marginalized the extreme elements." Any examples?

What I wanted to do on this thread was investigate the economic development claims of Modi. I understand that the data are uncomfortable for Modi supporters who want to believe that he is a development wizard. I don't expect millions of people to change how they vote based on my charts, but I am glad I produced them at least because it managed to irritate Modi supporters here.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:carvaka - -the question of modi's managerial capabilities and his role in gujarat's economic performance is a red herring created by his loud supporters. he should be rejected on the grounds of being autocratic and communally divisive. we shouldn't let his supporters change the subject, and keep them in a vice like grip of a narrowly constrained  conversation.

having said that, i do appreciate the great pains you have taken and lengths you have gone to look carefully at the data.

I agree that Modi is unfit to be PM because of his communally divisive politics. 

There is a view that seems to have taken root in the media and among the elites that we have to make a choice between secularism and economic development in this election. The premise is that Modi has an unmatched ability to catalyze economic development that we stand to miss out on under any other PM. Under this rubric, anyone who votes against Modi is willing to sacrifice that economic development at the altar of secularism; or to put it less dramatically, forgo that economic development as the price one has to pay to safeguard secularism. I think based on the data I have presented that this is a false choice. Others within India have replicated the excellent GDP growth that Modi has achieved in Gujarat within rounding error. And they have done so in a manner that was much more conducive to raising the standard of living of the population as a whole, than Modi has done in Gujarat. So in rejecting Modi, we are not giving up economic development that nobody other than him can achieve. This is why I believe it is important to challenge the notion of secularism vs. economic development whenever it comes up.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote: With respect to consistency: when I peeled the onion I found that in three of his nine years for which we have data (2004, 2006, and 2008) Gujarat's real GDP growth lagged the national average. See the chart below from an earlier post.


Two of those were substantial, not trivial, shortfalls; in 2004 the national average was 9.5% and Gujarat saw 6.0%, and in 2008 the national average was 8.4% with Gujarat clocking in 4.3%. For a six-year period between 2003 and 2009, each year of above-average performance was followed a year of below-average growth. Faced with this data, I could no longer accept the idea that Gujarat's performance consistently exceeded national average. The fact that I agreed with your idea that his performance was consistent until I looked at the data in detail reflects my inclination to give Modi all the credit that is due. The only credit I don't want to give him is what the numbers won't allow him.

Sorry...out of 10 years 2 years Gujarat lagged behind the national average and for 7 years it exceeded by a large margin. That in itself is a great performance - overall. Remember that Gujarat also had earthquakes, drought, and not to mention Central Congress is against the state for the last 9 years.  Despite that 7 out of 10 years (far) ahead of national average. Unless you can show me another state that exceeded Gujarat's performance you lost the case against Modi.  Plain and simple.

You forget the single most concern of Indians today is corruption. For someone who has served as CM for > 10 years, I have not heard any significant scam - compared to the other "great" CMs - Jaya, Mamata, Laloo, CBN, MK, even that Rajasthan dude. Also, no one can beat the current COngress Govt and the UPA in number of mega corruptions. Yeddy proved that he was just another swindler in just 5 years. Jagan/YSR set high standards for state leaders. Modi - ruling during the same period - avoided any such corruption charges.

That alone is sufficient to make BJP - and Modi specifically - superior to anyone else.

Contintuing to accuse Modi of 2002 carnage even after every investigation absolving him of responsibility is nothing short of hypocrisy on the part of those claiming to respect judiciary and fairness.

Do you have any graphs and data on corruption charges of various "kingpins" of Indian politicis?  Let us see that.

When I used to review grants for NIH, we used to assign scores based on what the provided data indicated to some 15 members on the study section, not on what the applicant concluded from the data.

If Diggy puts in an application with fukular conclusions and/or unusually harsh criticism of opponents, his will be in the dust bin.

Guruvu-gaaru: https://such.forumotion.com/t14803p50-gujarat-gdp-growth-and-narendra-modi-s-economic-record#113911

Modi is like Hillary Clinton. They both come with high recognition but also with high negative ratings.
Modi's big problem is 2002 riots. But bigger than that is his relentless anti Muslim campaign. His spiced up speeches taunting Muslims sends the message that he still harbors not so favorable view of that group of people. His lack of any visible effort to build bridges to minorities make him unpalatable to anyone but his staunch supporters. He will have a positive vote impact in bjp strongholds but I do not see him making enough impact in new areas to win new Mp seats. Vajpayee was able to attract new partners and new voters. Bjp won 7 or 8 Mp seats in ap in 1998.That will never happen with Modi. Bjp may increase its tally compared to 2009 but will find no partners.
A nitish kumar led nda could have had a much wider impact. And a winning strategy..

"Others within India have replicated the excellent GDP growth that Modi has achieved in Gujarat within rounding error." ...  Idefix
 
>>> Name one person who has replicated Modi's achievement?
 
Btw don't name the recent example of Bihar (under Nitesh), because Bihar had been run so much into the ground by previous leaders that any small / marginal achievement there now looks a huge progress (percentage-wise).
 
It's like there are two guys ... one of them (let's say G) has $10,000 in his pocket and the other (let's call it B) has only $1000 with him.
 
Next, let's say G is able to get additional $1000 and B another $200, through earnings etc.
 
In terms of the percentages, as the media and some intellectuals like to talk, B's wealth went up by 20% which was more than that for G (which had its wealth go up only 10%).
 
But, in reality and absolute numbers, B had an increase of only $200 in its wealth whereas G's amount went up by $1000, but the percentages don't make that clear.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Others within India have replicated the excellent GDP growth that Modi has achieved in Gujarat within rounding error." ...  Idefix
 
>>> Name one person who has replicated Modi's achievement?
 
Btw don't name the recent example of Bihar (under Nitesh), because Bihar had been run so much into the ground by previous leaders that any small / marginal achievement there now looks a huge progress (percentage-wise).
 
It's like there are two guys ... one of them (let's say G) has $10,000 in his pocket and the other (let's call it B) has only $1000 with him.
 
Next, let's say G is able to get additional $1000 and B another $200, through earnings etc.
 
In terms of the percentages, as the media and some intellectuals like to talk, B's wealth went up by 20% which was more than that for G (which had its wealth go up only 10%).
 
But, in reality and absolute numbers, B had an increase of only $200 in its wealth whereas G's amount went by $1000, but the percentages don't make that clear.

Sevaji, both Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have larger economies than Gujarat. Both of them grew GDP at a CAGR that is within rounding error of Gujarat's. In effect, using your own analogy: G had $10,000 in his pocket, and M had $20,000. G was able to get an additional $1,030. M was able to get an additional $2,020, almost twice of G's additional earnings. G was touting his 10.3% growth as exceptional, but M grew at only 10.1%. Now who do you like more, G or M?

truthbetold wrote:Modi is like Hillary Clinton. They both come with high recognition but also with high negative ratings.
Modi's big problem is 2002 riots. But bigger than that is his relentless anti Muslim campaign. His spiced up speeches taunting Muslims sends the message that he still harbors not so favorable view of that group of people. His lack of any visible effort to build bridges to minorities make him unpalatable to anyone but his staunch supporters. He will have a positive vote impact in bjp strongholds but I do not see him making enough impact in new areas to win new Mp seats. Vajpayee was able to attract new partners and new voters. Bjp won 7 or 8 Mp seats in ap in 1998.That will never happen with Modi. Bjp may increase its tally compared to 2009 but will find no partners.
A nitish kumar led nda could have had a much wider impact. And a winning strategy..

That's quite true... very polarizing figures, strong support within their bases, and strong opposition from the other side. I agree with you about his behavior since 2002 -- I don't buy the idea that he has moved to the center, or that he has marginalized extreme elements. He has done nothing of the sort AFAIK. If he had, I might have been more favorably disposed towards him.

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Others within India have replicated the excellent GDP growth that Modi has achieved in Gujarat within rounding error." ...  Idefix
 
>>> Name one person who has replicated Modi's achievement?
 
Btw don't name the recent example of Bihar (under Nitesh), because Bihar had been run so much into the ground by previous leaders that any small / marginal achievement there now looks a huge progress (percentage-wise).
 
It's like there are two guys ... one of them (let's say G) has $10,000 in his pocket and the other (let's call it B) has only $1000 with him.
 
Next, let's say G is able to get additional $1000 and B another $200, through earnings etc.
 
In terms of the percentages, as the media and some intellectuals like to talk, B's wealth went up by 20% which was more than that for G (which had its wealth go up only 10%).
 
But, in reality and absolute numbers, B had an increase of only $200 in its wealth whereas G's amount went by $1000, but the percentages don't make that clear.

Sevaji, both Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have larger economies than Gujarat. Both of them grew GDP at a CAGR that is within rounding error of Gujarat's. In effect, using your own analogy: G had $10,000 in his pocket, and M had $20,000. G was able to get an additional $1,030. M was able to get an additional $2,020, almost twice of G's additional earnings. G was touting his 10.3% growth as exceptional, but M grew at only 10.1%. Now who do you like more, G or M?

 
Naturally, G / Gujarat.  
 
More than 70% of Maharashtra's earnings are from or by virtue of Bombay / Mumbai alone, the financial capital of India. What happens in Mumbai to propel the economic activity is not just due to the decisions by Maharashtra Govt. and its CM, but also the result of the economic / financial policies of India's Central Govt. and the nearby Gujarat Govt. There is also a considerable impact on Mumbai's economy due to international (foreign) economic policies and activities.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:More than 70% of Maharashtra's earnings are from or by virtue of Bomabay / Mumbai alone, the financial capital of India. What happens in Mumbai to propel the economic activity is not just due to the decisions by Maharashtra Govt. and its CM, but also the result of the economic / financial policies of India's Central Govt. and the nearby Gujarat Govt. 

 When it comes to investments, job creation, etc. Mumbai is affected by the government of Maharashtra just as much as Ahmedabad is impacted by the government of Gujarat. No more, no less. 

Actually, forget about Maharashtra. Try this on for size: G has $10,000 in his pocket, while T has $12,000. G earns an additional $1,030 and T earns an additional $1,200. G touts his 10.3% growth as exceptional, while T has only achieved 10.0%. Who do you like more now, G or T? 

Let us see what other excuses you can come up with now.

Looking at the subject (Gujarat GDP growth and Narendra Modi's economic record), charts, more charts and comparison charts, this is very unfortunate thread to be going against Modi.

With sprinkling of Modi's alleged divisive agenda, I'm surprised why M and T states are not touting their CMs to let the best economically CM win for PM position? Don't know why?

The good charts here say nothing against Modi. Nothing.

Idéfix wrote:
Actually, forget about Maharashtra. Try this on for size: G has $10,000 in his pocket, while T has $12,000. G earns an additional $1,030 and T earns an additional $1,200. G touts his 10.3% growth as exceptional, while T has only achieved 10.0%. Who do you like more now, G or T? 

Let us see what other excuses you can come up with now.

So far your campaign - as also that of MAX and other PiS Gang - has been negative against Modi. I have been waiting for 2 days now to hear from you what the voter should do and why - using graphs, bells and whistles....

What is your alternative? Let us talk.

southindian wrote:The good charts here say nothing against Modi. Nothing.

Try this one: https://such.forumotion.com/t14803p50-gujarat-gdp-growth-and-narendra-modi-s-economic-record#113903

southindian wrote:Looking at the subject (Gujarat GDP growth and Narendra Modi's economic record), charts, more charts and comparison charts, this is very unfortunate thread to be going against Modi.

With sprinkling of Modi's alleged divisive agenda, I'm surprised why M and T states are not touting their CMs to let the best economically CM win for PM position? Don't know why?

The good charts here say nothing against Modi. Nothing.

hindi mein bolo souththththththindian, hindi mein bolo. itna mushkil se angrezi bolne ki koi zarurat nahin.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:So far your campaign - as also that of MAX and other PiS Gang - has been negative against Modi. I have been waiting for 2 days now to hear from you what the voter should do and why - using graphs, bells and whistles.... 

The voter should do whoever (s)he thinks will best represent them. My purpose on this thread is not to campaign for any particular candidate. It's a little early in the election season for that. I am just showing real data to evaluate the accomplishments of a candidate.