Modi's strange effect on people's brains

Apparently, Modi has some strange effects on people's brains, their logical faculties, their good sense. Some examples:

1. Gujarat has more or less been one of the best performing states in India under Modi's administration for the better part of a decade. But, it's rate of growth is only about 0.4% or 0.5% higher than the next best performing states. That's not good enough. So, Modi is not fit to be the PM.

2. If Modi is fit to be the PM, the CM of Maharashtra is also fit to be PM, because that state is very close behind Gujarat in economic growth. It doesn't matter that most people barely know the name of the CM of Maharashtra, where as Modi is well-known not just across the country, but in many parts of the world. Still the CM of Maharashtra is as deserving as Modi to be the PM.

3. If Modi can be the PM, the CM of Tamilnadu is also fit to be the PM, another state which is close behind Gujarat. Never mind that she is obviously autocratic / dictatorial, and undoubtedly corrupt when it comes to amassing wealth for herself and those near-and-dear to her, where as Modi is undoubtedly incorruptible and he is assertive (very different from autocractic / dictatorial, please refer dictionary.com for more info). Never mind that she doesn't have a pan Indian appeal nor can she inspire the nation's youngsters the way Modi can. She is still as good as Modi.

4. Even L K Advani is a better candidate to be the PM than Modi. He is so secular, when compared to the communal Modi. Never mind that L K Advani was the original "Hindutva hawk" under whom BJP came to real national prominence in the 1990s. Never mind that he is the architect of the Ayodhya movement gaining national prominence. Never mind that the direct and indirect results of Advani's Ayodhya movement resulted in greater loss of lives than the 2002 riots in Gujarat. All those can be forgiven and forgotten. But we cannot forget what we IMAGINE to be Modi's role in the 2002 riots. It's only my imagination cuz I have absolutely no facts to backup my accusations about Modi's actions or inactions in 2002. It is only my imagination cuz he's been given a clean chit by the SIT. It is only my imagination because there is no legal case, not even any legal accusations or allegations against him in any court of the land. But IMAGINATION is enough to say Modi doesn't deserve to be a PM.

5. Even Jaitley is a better candidate to be the PM than Modi. Never mind that he is not a leader with any mass appeal or public support base. Never mind that he has been the virtual second-in-command under whom BJP lost the elections in 2004 and 2009. Never mind that he has singularly failed in converting the BJP into an effective opposition party for the past 10 years. Never mind that he has no experience being the leader of a ruling administration. Never mind that he might probably not even win the Lok Sabha elections if he stands against a strong Congress or other regional party candidate. No, all that is okay. But a true leader and able administrator with nationwide popularity, a person with a decade-long experience of leading a state that is as big and as prosperous as many countries in the world is not a better PM candidate than Jaitley if his name happens to be Narendra Modi.

6. Even Nitish Kumar is a better candidate to be the PM than Modi. Never mind that he plays partition politics. Never mind that he is an opportunist hypocrite who was perfectly okay with the BJP and Modi's communalism for the better part of a decade until Modi came in his way of becoming the NDA's PM candidate. Never mind that for every positive thing he has done in Bihar, there are one or more negative things he has done, or things he has allowed to go wrong by doing nothing (eg: the death of kids in midday meal fiasco, which is a direct result of Nitish's administration doing nothing about schools, despite having central funds allocated to them for that very purpose). Never mind that Nitish went begging to New Delhi to designate Bihar as a backward state, and if he becomes the PM, he will probably fuck up the economy and go begging to IMF / World Bank, and sell India down the river. Never mind all that. He is a better candidate and his countless mistakes are nothing against what I BELIEVE to be Modi's mistake in 2002, although I cannot back that up with facts.

7. Chidambaram is the perfect candidate to be the PM. Never mind that he will also be the front-man and puppet of the Gandhi family. Never mind that he will continue with an administration including people who presided over the worst corruption scams in independent India, and fucked the economy royally. Never mind that he has presided as finance minister during this royal screwing of our economy. Never mind that he has allowed the Gandhi family to use the economy as their personal expense account to buy votes. Never mind that he has resorted to blaming his predecessors instead of doing something constructive to fix the economy. Never mind that he and his potential UPA 3 administration will continue this and worse if they come to power in 2014, and they will well and truly destroy India. All that is better than Modi becoming the PM. Why? Because I BELIEVE that Modi is to be blamed for the 2002 riots in Gujarat. Never mind that I cannot present any facts to back up my claims. Never mind that I have pretty much admitted to this being merely my belief, and I am unable to find any facts to support my beliefs. But my BELIEFS are enough to make Modi unacceptable, even if we end up with Chidambaram as the PM, while his wife and son continue looting the country. I am perfectly okay with Congress and Chidambaram flushing the country down the toilet as long as Modi doesn't become the PM.

in the minds of our intellectuals, all is forgotten if you make secular sounding noises. you can be an incompetent fuck barely qualified to run a coffee shop let alone a country of size and complications but you'll be infinitely more qualified than modi. then they will put aside their kebab rolls and eulogize in complicated english employing their tortuous logic in a passive aggressive way.

SomeProfile wrote:Apparently, Modi has some strange effects on people's brains, their logical faculties, their good sense. Some examples:

1. Gujarat has more or less been one of the best performing states in India under Modi's administration for the better part of a decade. But, it's rate of growth is only about 0.4% or 0.5% higher than the next best performing states. That's not good enough. So, Modi is not fit to be the PM.  

i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

SomeProfile wrote: 2. If Modi is fit to be the PM, the CM of Maharashtra is also fit to be PM, because that state is very close behind Gujarat in economic growth. It doesn't matter that most people barely know the name of the CM of Maharashtra, where as Modi is well-known not just across the country, but in many parts of the world. Still the CM of Maharashtra is as deserving as Modi to be the PM.

Most of Maharashtra income is generated by (in) Bombay / Mumbai which has a considerable economic benefit and influence from policies and programs next door in Gujarat state and also internationally.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:Apparently, Modi has some strange effects on people's brains, their logical faculties, their good sense. Some examples:

1. Gujarat has more or less been one of the best performing states in India under Modi's administration for the better part of a decade. But, it's rate of growth is only about 0.4% or 0.5% higher than the next best performing states. That's not good enough. So, Modi is not fit to be the PM.  

i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

SomeProfile wrote: 2. If Modi is fit to be the PM, the CM of Maharashtra is also fit to be PM, because that state is very close behind Gujarat in economic growth. It doesn't matter that most people barely know the name of the CM of Maharashtra, where as Modi is well-known not just across the country, but in many parts of the world. Still the CM of Maharashtra is as deserving as Modi to be the PM.

Most of Maharashtra income is generated by (in) Bombay / Mumbai which has a considerable economic benefit and influence from policies and programs next door in Gujarat state and also internationally.

it is the other way around. gujarat benefits from mumbai's proximity.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
it is the other way around. gujarat benefits from mumbai's proximity.

This is like saying Karnataka benefitted from proximity to Madras.

Gujarat might have benefitted from Bombay's proximity in the 60s and 70s, but with Ahmadabad and Surat establishinging themselves as major cities, Gujarat developed its own momentum.

By that token, Andhra and Hyderabad also owe their development to Madras...

SomeProfile wrote:1. Gujarat has more or less been one of the best performing states in India under Modi's administration for the better part of a decade. But, it's rate of growth is only about 0.4% or 0.5% higher than the next best performing states. That's not good enough. So, Modi is not fit to be the PM.

Where are you getting that from? Gujarat's growth under Modi does not make him unfit to be PM. However, it doesn't distinguish him as the best candidate either.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

Gujarat grew at 0.2% and 0.3% faster than Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu respectively. Both those states have larger GDPs than Gujarat. So the absolute numbers are more impressive for MH and TN than for Gujarat. When it comes to standard of living, Gujarat fell further behind those two states under Modi.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:Apparently, Modi has some strange effects on people's brains, their logical faculties, their good sense. Some examples:

1. Gujarat has more or less been one of the best performing states in India under Modi's administration for the better part of a decade. But, it's rate of growth is only about 0.4% or 0.5% higher than the next best performing states. That's not good enough. So, Modi is not fit to be the PM.  

i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

SomeProfile wrote: 2. If Modi is fit to be the PM, the CM of Maharashtra is also fit to be PM, because that state is very close behind Gujarat in economic growth. It doesn't matter that most people barely know the name of the CM of Maharashtra, where as Modi is well-known not just across the country, but in many parts of the world. Still the CM of Maharashtra is as deserving as Modi to be the PM.

Most of Maharashtra income is generated by (in) Bombay / Mumbai which has a considerable economic benefit and influence from policies and programs next door in Gujarat state and also internationally.

it is the other way around. gujarat benefits from mumbai's proximity.

And from the Gujarati diaspora in Mumbai and overseas. Both MH and GJ benefit from pre-liberalization industrialization, which gave them an edge over other states.

The fact is, the major states in question -- MH, TN, AP, KA, GJ -- have all been around for a while now in their current shape. And they have the advantages and disadvantages they have. The question is whether a state government managed to build on what it was given, and it seems like TN, MH, and GJ all grew GDP at ~10% CAGR.

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

Gujarat grew at 0.2% and 0.3% faster than Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu respectively. Both those states have larger GDPs than Gujarat. So the absolute numbers are more impressive for MH and TN than for Gujarat. When it comes to standard of living, Gujarat fell further behind those two states under Modi.

That's probably because Modi seems to allow less corruption in his state.
Remember the Govt. aparments allocated in Mumbai (Maharashtra) to Kargil army widows getting scammed and finally ending up with politicians and high officials? Such a thing seems quite unlikely in Gujarat under Modi. Do you also want to talk about TN ... Raja and others?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

Gujarat grew at 0.2% and 0.3% faster than Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu respectively. Both those states have larger GDPs than Gujarat. So the absolute numbers are more impressive for MH and TN than for Gujarat. When it comes to standard of living, Gujarat fell further behind those two states under Modi.

That's probably because Modi seems to allow less corruption in his state.
Remember the Govt. aparments allocated in Mumbai (Maharashtra) to Kargil army widows getting scammed and finally ending up with politicians and high officials? Such a thing seems quite unlikely in Gujarat under Modi. Do you also want to talk about TN ... Raja and others?

You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Here is a nice picture showing the Human Development Index improvements of the states in question.

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

Gujarat grew at 0.2% and 0.3% faster than Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu respectively. Both those states have larger GDPs than Gujarat. So the absolute numbers are more impressive for MH and TN than for Gujarat. When it comes to standard of living, Gujarat fell further behind those two states under Modi.

That's probably because Modi seems to allow less corruption in his state.
Remember the Govt. aparments allocated in Mumbai (Maharashtra) to Kargil army widows getting scammed and finally ending up with politicians and high officials? Such a thing seems quite unlikely in Gujarat under Modi. Do you also want to talk about TN ... Raja and others?

You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Here is a nice picture showing the Human Development Index improvements of the states in question.

It really depends on who prepared these "fancy" charts / reports and why (motivation-wise etc.) and whether they take all the important arguments / factors / parameters into consideration?  The following gives the example (in Footnote) about these kinds of reports etc.,
http://lamberdar.hubpages.com/hub/electoral_misinterpretation

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

Gujarat grew at 0.2% and 0.3% faster than Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu respectively. Both those states have larger GDPs than Gujarat. So the absolute numbers are more impressive for MH and TN than for Gujarat. When it comes to standard of living, Gujarat fell further behind those two states under Modi.

That's probably because Modi seems to allow less corruption in his state.
Remember the Govt. aparments allocated in Mumbai (Maharashtra) to Kargil army widows getting scammed and finally ending up with politicians and high officials? Such a thing seems quite unlikely in Gujarat under Modi. Do you also want to talk about TN ... Raja and others?

You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Here is a nice picture showing the Human Development Index improvements of the states in question.

It really depends on who prepared these "fancy" charts / reports and why (motivation-wise etc.) and whether they take all the important arguments / factors / parameters into consideration?  The following gives the example (in Footnote) about these kinds of reports etc.,
http://lamberdar.hubpages.com/hub/electoral_misinterpretation

I prepared the chart using publicly available information on HDI in each of those states. The motivation was to see how these states did on improving standard of living for their people. I provided the data sources, and you are welcome to check my math.

Idéfix wrote:
I prepared the chart using publicly available information on HDI in each of those states. The motivation was to see how these states did on improving standard of living for their people. I provided the data sources, and you are welcome to check my math.

Please email it to your Leader Rahul Baba ji.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
I prepared the chart using publicly available information on HDI in each of those states. The motivation was to see how these states did on improving standard of living for their people. I provided the data sources, and you are welcome to check my math.

Please email it to your Leader Rahul Baba ji.

irrelevant!

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Gujarat grew at 0.2% and 0.3% faster than Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu respectively. Both those states have larger GDPs than Gujarat. So the absolute numbers are more impressive for MH and TN than for Gujarat. When it comes to standard of living, Gujarat fell further behind those two states under Modi.

That's probably because Modi seems to allow less corruption in his state.
Remember the Govt. aparments allocated in Mumbai (Maharashtra) to Kargil army widows getting scammed and finally ending up with politicians and high officials? Such a thing seems quite unlikely in Gujarat under Modi. Do you also want to talk about TN ... Raja and others?

You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Here is a nice picture showing the Human Development Index improvements of the states in question.

It really depends on who prepared these "fancy" charts / reports and why (motivation-wise etc.) and whether they take all the important arguments / factors / parameters into consideration?  The following gives the example (in Footnote) about these kinds of reports etc.,
http://lamberdar.hubpages.com/hub/electoral_misinterpretation

I prepared the chart using publicly available information on HDI in each of those states. The motivation was to see how these states did on improving standard of living for their people. I provided the data sources, and you are welcome to check my math.

In the above (data sources) there is a statement by you or someone else, "The Human Development Index is often used as a shorthand for the state of development. This is not a measure of just income, but a composite measure that includes measures of income, life expectancy, health, and education. Here is a 2011 report about human development in India. I used the data on page 24 to produce the chart below. The chart shows the percentage change in HDI in each major state between 2000 and 2008, the last year included in this report. I will continue to look for HDI trends into 2011 and beyond and post them here. The chart is sorted in ascending order of 2008 HDI.", which indicates that the HDI and the corresponding numbers really reflect the comparisons (as percentage increases) for the same state (from one year to the next) rather being the comparison figures between different states.  

In other words, HDI for many other states and India as a whole being higher (percentage-wise) than that for Gujarat in your chart has little to do with Gujarat lagging behind the other states or India as a whole in absolute terms. In reality, the starting or base level HDI for Gujarat probably is highest and that might be the reason that the yearly percentage increase in HDI for Gujarat is less than that for other states (Maharashtra and TN etc.)

Seva Lamberdar wrote:In other words, HDI for many other states and India as a whole being higher (percentage-wise) than that for Gujarat in your chart has little to do with Gujarat lagging behind the other states or India as a whole in absolute terms. In reality, the starting or base level HDI for Gujarat probably is highest and that might be the reason that the yearly percentage increase in HDI for Gujarat is less than that for other states (Maharashtra and TN etc.)

Sevaji, you are letting "what you want to believe" get in the way of understanding a rather simple chart, drawn from data that has been cited. The data used is for those specific states.

At the "beginning" of the period in question, Gujarat (0.466) was behind Maharashtra (0.501) and Tamil Nadu (0.480), and it was ahead of Andhra Pradesh (0.368) and Karnataka (0.432). By the end of the period, Gujarat fell further behind Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, and it lost some of the advantage it had over Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In absolute terms, Gujarat's increase of 0.061 points is the least of all five. In percentage terms, Gujarat's improvement of 13% was the least of all five states. In both absolute and percentage terms, Gujarat's performance was worse than comparable states with both higher and lower initial HDIs.

Idéfix wrote:
At the "beginning" of the period in question, Gujarat (0.466) was behind Maharashtra (0.501) and Tamil Nadu (0.480), and it was ahead of Andhra Pradesh (0.368) and Karnataka (0.432). By the end of the period, Gujarat fell further behind Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, and it lost some of the advantage it had over Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In absolute terms, Gujarat's increase of 0.061 points is the least of all five. In percentage terms, Gujarat's improvement of 13% was the least of all five states. In both absolute and percentage terms, Gujarat's performance was worse than comparable states with both higher and lower initial HDIs.

Ok...agreed.... Modi is bad... everything he said was a lie. Great analysis.

Now can you also show some charts to prove good governance by Rahul Baba ?

That will help the uneducated and Chart-challenged common folks like myself.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Ok...agreed.... Modi is bad... everything he said was a lie. Great analysis.

Now can you also show some charts to prove good governance by Rahul Baba ?

That will help the uneducated and Chart-challenged common folks like myself.

strawman!

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Ok...agreed.... Modi is bad... everything he said was a lie. Great analysis.

Now can you also show some charts to prove good governance by Rahul Baba ?

That will help the uneducated and Chart-challenged common folks like myself.

strawman!

why "ra" in red?

bw wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Ok...agreed.... Modi is bad... everything he said was a lie. Great analysis.

Now can you also show some charts to prove good governance by Rahul Baba ?

That will help the uneducated and Chart-challenged common folks like myself.

strawman!

why "ra" in red?

may be PP is a commie:P

bw wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Ok...agreed.... Modi is bad... everything he said was a lie. Great analysis.

Now can you also show some charts to prove good governance by Rahul Baba ?

That will help the uneducated and Chart-challenged common folks like myself.

strawman!

why "ra" in red?

Open a new thread if you want to know. I may or may not respond.

PS: That was just a random highlight, illustrating the randomness of Uppili's comment.

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:In other words, HDI for many other states and India as a whole being higher (percentage-wise) than that for Gujarat in your chart has little to do with Gujarat lagging behind the other states or India as a whole in absolute terms. In reality, the starting or base level HDI for Gujarat probably is highest and that might be the reason that the yearly percentage increase in HDI for Gujarat is less than that for other states (Maharashtra and TN etc.)

Sevaji, you are letting "what you want to believe" get in the way of understanding a rather simple chart, drawn from data that has been cited. The data used is for those specific states.

At the "beginning" of the period in question, Gujarat (0.466) was behind Maharashtra (0.501) and Tamil Nadu (0.480), and it was ahead of Andhra Pradesh (0.368) and Karnataka (0.432). By the end of the period, Gujarat fell further behind Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, and it lost some of the advantage it had over Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In absolute terms, Gujarat's increase of 0.061 points is the least of all five. In percentage terms, Gujarat's improvement of 13% was the least of all five states. In both absolute and percentage terms, Gujarat's performance was worse than comparable states with both higher and lower initial HDIs.

At the "beginning" of the period in question, the numbers (percentage HDIs, e.g. 0.466 for Gujarat versus 0.501 for MH etc.) probably again reflected the comparisons or levels of HDIs with themselves, implying that Gujarat economy has been strong and doing consistently well for a long time (for ahead of others) even before the "beginning" of HDI tracking.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:At the "beginning" of the period in question, the numbers (percentage HDIs, e.g. 0.466 for Gujarat versus 0.501 for MH etc.) probably again reflected the comparisons or levels of HDIs with themselves, implying that Gujarat economy has been strong and doing consistently well for a long time (for ahead of others) even before the "beginning" of HDI tracking.

Gujarat has been doing well, but not as well as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, or even Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. I know you like to obfuscate things when clear conclusions you see are not to your liking. But there isn't much scope for that here.

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:At the "beginning" of the period in question, the numbers (percentage HDIs, e.g. 0.466 for Gujarat versus 0.501 for MH etc.) probably again reflected the comparisons or levels of HDIs with themselves, implying that Gujarat economy has been strong and doing consistently well for a long time (for ahead of others) even before the "beginning" of HDI tracking.

Gujarat has been doing well, but not as well as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, or even Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. I know you like to obfuscate things when clear conclusions you see are not to your liking. But there isn't much scope for that here.

If the absolute wealth per head is higher in TN, MH, AP and Karnataka than Gugarat, then why not cite those figures (absolute wealth / head) instead of HDIs (the measure reflecting percentage growth of wealth from one year to the next)?

The reason is simple, because that way (by using the HDI format) even a state at the bottom of the ladder in terms of absolute wealth per head and just having a small increase in its wealth in absolute numbers can be shown to have a higher HDI than another state (Gujarat, for example) which is sitting at the top in terms of wealth per head.

Instead of saying which state had the highest (percentage) growth in wealth (HDI) last year, why not say what was the amount (wealth) per head in the state at the beginning of the year and how much it grew (in absolute numbers) by the end of the year.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:HDIs (the measure reflecting percentage growth of wealth from one year to the next)

This summarizes your complete confusion -- or willful pretense of ignorance -- on this issue. One minute spent looking up the term HDI is enough to understand that HDI is not a measure of percentage growth of wealth from one year to the next. Even taking a thirty-second pause to read what I wrote a long time ago and you copy-pasted yesterday in this very thread would have told you that HDI is a broad measure of standard of living. You are welcome to continue to pretend to be ignorant, or just be hopelessly muddleheaded, but it isn't worth my time to play along.

in other words:

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:HDIs (the measure reflecting percentage growth of wealth from one year to the next)

This summarizes your complete confusion -- or willful pretense of ignorance -- on this issue. One minute spent looking up the term HDI is enough to understand that HDI is not a measure of percentage growth of wealth from one year to the next. Even taking a thirty-second pause to read what I wrote a long time ago and you copy-pasted yesterday in this very thread would have told you that HDI is a broad measure of standard of living. You are welcome to continue to pretend to be ignorant, or just be hopelessly muddleheaded, but it isn't worth my time to play along.

That is the biggest bullshit since the ads by snake oil salesmen -- "HDI is a broad measure of standard of living."
If anyone is serious in learning about prosperity and happiness of people in a state, they should look at the wealth per head in that state and how it is distributed.
No wonder, based probably on HDI figures, many people are confused about the actual condition of people and keep on making statements like Bihar is the shining example of economic growth in India and Nitish Kumar the model chief minister. In reality and absolute terms (wealth / head), Bihar is stuck at / near the bottom.

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:i.e.  0.4% or 0.5% for a state (Gujarat) over another state having the basic income level of about one-fifth of Gujarat. In  absolute numbers, the difference is quite huge.

Gujarat grew at 0.2% and 0.3% faster than Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu respectively. Both those states have larger GDPs than Gujarat. So the absolute numbers are more impressive for MH and TN than for Gujarat. When it comes to standard of living, Gujarat fell further behind those two states under Modi.

That's probably because Modi seems to allow less corruption in his state.
Remember the Govt. aparments allocated in Mumbai (Maharashtra) to Kargil army widows getting scammed and finally ending up with politicians and high officials? Such a thing seems quite unlikely in Gujarat under Modi. Do you also want to talk about TN ... Raja and others?

You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Here is a nice picture showing the Human Development Index improvements of the states in question.