![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There's some talk in orkut between Pakistanis who are ganging up to vandalise this page as well as other India related information in the wiki. I suggest that edits be strictly monitored and vandals blocked.
"growing unemployment and growing poverty, which has seen a decrease of just 10% since the 1980s."
just thought i'd point that out :P -- 142.68.236.133 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I still think this should be in ther determinants section since without humn capital it would be pretty difficult to have an economy at all. -- nixie 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if the input that I reverted has a mass appeal. Please see the edit and if any part of it should be retained. I dont agree with the view, especially since it is unsubstantiated and perhaps POV, but I am not that sure. This is just to be politically correct :) Saksham 23:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if information concerning the imposition of monopoly in the textile industry, salt taxes, etc. by the British should be included here. The section seems to make an abrupt transition from "standardization of weights, etc" to "poor country." These are key points in India's economic history as well.
Hello fellow Wikis,
I thought you'd be interested in this:
China and India bury hatchet
DAN MCDOUGALL IN NEW DELHI
THE colonial period left India with the foundations to grow and operate an effective economy. Property rights, free trade, fixed exchange rates, a uniform currency system, uniform weights and measures, open capital markets and a well developed system of railways and telegraphs, as well as a modern legal system, were all beneficial to growth.
Now.....
Wikipedia's Article on the Indian Economy
The colonial rule brought along a favourable institutional environment that guaranteed property rights, ensured free trade, had fixed exchange rates, uniform currency system, uniform weights and measures, open capital markets, well developed system of railways and telegraphs, a bureaucracy free from political interferences and a modern legal system.
I know this probably goes on a lot, but shouldn't he have referenced Wikipedia, even with Copylefting?
Congratulations to Pamri, Saksham, Nichalp, Kaal and other editors who helped bringing this article to FA status. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 03:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Have added a line. Didn't know how to add the reference. If the line is kept, could someone add this link? Saksham 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
What is meant by "disguised unemployment"? People feigning to get benefits? -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you to all users who made this page. I learnt several things. Fine. -- MissingLinks 08:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
there is no mention of domestic trade in pre-colonial times in the history section. and coupled with the statements that village "economies was largely isolated and self-sustaining" and "Superstitions about foreign travel ...", i think gives a misleading impression of a lack of trade and industry in those times. does anybody point to info abt domestic trade tht can be included.
the statement that colonial rule brought "favourable institutional environment that guaranteed property rights, ensured free trade,uniform currency system, uniform weights and measures, open capital markets, ... a bureaucracy free from political interferences and a modern legal system." is, i think, somewhat far-fetched -
i think the statement needs some POV work.
Doldrums 14:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The economy [of Tamil kingdoms], however, was centred around foreign trade, and there is evidence of significant contact with Europe. Large hoards of Roman coins and evidence of the presence of Roman traders have been discovered at Karur and Arikamedu, and there is evidence that at least two embassies were sent to the Roman Emperor Augustus by Pandya kings. Potsherds with Tamil writing have also been found in excavations on the Red Sea, suggesting the presence of Tamil merchants there (Mahadevan 2003). An anonymous 1st century traveler's account written in Greek, Periplus Maris Erytraei, describes the ports of the Pandya and Chera kingdoms and the trade with them in substantial detail, and indicates that the chief exports of the Tamils in those days were pepper, malabathrum, pearls, ivory, silk, spikenard, diamonds, sapphires, and tortoiseshell (Casson 1989).
I have reordered the 5 Ind.cos. by Market capitalisation (MC) table as per their Forbes Global 2000 ranking, since MC is pretty volatile (since its based on stock movement) and hence does not give as clear a picture as the forbes list, which ranks companies on parameters like Sales, Profit, Assets and Market Values, besides being global. I have moved this sentence here, since it does not fit in the industry para. Will readd it in some form or reword it. In terms of Market capitalisation, India remains one of the top 15 markets in the world with $450 billion in mid-2005. [1] -- Pamri • Talk 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I propose removing lists for 2005 and 2006 and just keeping the list for 2007. Abhiag 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, congrats on having one of the most clearly worded intros of all the featured articles I've checked so far. With only a few minor changes the intro was entirely (and mostly correctly) machine parsable by link grammar. One little bump I ran into was the follow text:
It isn't completely clear which of the list has decreased. Commons sense would have me assume the last, but only because it seems unlikly that all would have decreased by 10%. I'd like to adjust the sentence so the parsing is non-ambigious, but I need to know which actually decreased! Thanks -- Gmaxwell 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the para on national income estimates to Economic history of India. While the data is interesting, it really does not add much here and unnecessarily lengthens the history section. Contrast it with the two other estimates added, which are to the point and act as background info. -- Pamri • Talk 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed how the Colonial section suggests that the British introduced "uniform weights and measures" to India, when India has clearly already had its own (post-Harappan) system of weights and measures, which is described in the following article: Hindu units of measurement. Since the reference to weights and measures doesn't appear to be true, I'm going to remove it until someone can prove otherwise. - Jagged 85, 18/01/2006
As it stands the graph shows a comparison of the GDP percapita of various South Asian countries, and South Korea as a percentage to the US, but it only goes up to the year 1995, it would be nice if the chart showed the effects of India's liberalization from 1995 to 2005. I did some calculations using data here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
But I am not a registered user so5 I don't want to update the image.
Not sure how to upload images. @Dhruval 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Article like this is going to need lots of updates over time. I am going to make a list of data that needs to be updated (I would do it but I find the citation style way too confusing to bother myself).
That avialable in the CIA factbook is just an estimate and not the real GDP growth rate. Chanakyathegreat 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
India is in the 152'th place from your link there not 155!!!
This article is too long and cumbersome. Its time to create stubs for national labour market and its associated regulations and laws. Anwar saadat 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The introductory section claims that poverty has reduced by 10% since the 80s, a claim that is flatly contradicted by the section on poverty. Also, the point about " The question of whether economic reforms has reduced or increased poverty has fuelled debates" stands just by itself without mentioning the corresponding figures (39% to 26%). I'd change them myself, but I just wanted to confirm if it is here through some sort of consensus. — Ravikiran 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"However, India's huge population results in a relatively low per capita income of $3,100 at PPP." It's not like India has a set GDP and the huge population makes the per capita income low. Wouldn't it be more correct to say India's huge population results in the large GDP numbers despite the low per capita income? I don't particularly think it should be phrased the way I put it either, but the way it is now bothers me. Any thoughts?
Fdi india seems an odd standalone article. How about merging it into the External trade and investment section here. Cordless Larry 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Anwar, your latest edits [2] probably mean that these should start having subarticles of their own. I don't think that we need those exact figures in tables in the main article. — Ravikiran 06:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made one round of copyedits [3]. While some are grammar changes, many involve removal of overqualifications (we don't have to compare with other developing countries every time we say something negative about India) and other changes that I think will tighten up the stuff, but also change the meaning subtly. Please have a look. In particular, I have rephrased the sentence on poverty that was bothering me above and changed "The question of whether economic reforms has reduced or increased poverty" to "The question of whether economic reforms have reduced poverty or not" because AFAIK no one has been claiming that it worsened poverty, only that it has not alleviated poverty enough.
UPDATE ARTICLE
According to the new World Bank figures, India's poverty rate is 35% and not 25% as it is usually typed here. Can someone please rewrite that part of the article and change it? Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Napoleon12 10:38 am, 08 Jul 2006
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There's some talk in orkut between Pakistanis who are ganging up to vandalise this page as well as other India related information in the wiki. I suggest that edits be strictly monitored and vandals blocked.
"growing unemployment and growing poverty, which has seen a decrease of just 10% since the 1980s."
just thought i'd point that out :P -- 142.68.236.133 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I still think this should be in ther determinants section since without humn capital it would be pretty difficult to have an economy at all. -- nixie 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if the input that I reverted has a mass appeal. Please see the edit and if any part of it should be retained. I dont agree with the view, especially since it is unsubstantiated and perhaps POV, but I am not that sure. This is just to be politically correct :) Saksham 23:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if information concerning the imposition of monopoly in the textile industry, salt taxes, etc. by the British should be included here. The section seems to make an abrupt transition from "standardization of weights, etc" to "poor country." These are key points in India's economic history as well.
Hello fellow Wikis,
I thought you'd be interested in this:
China and India bury hatchet
DAN MCDOUGALL IN NEW DELHI
THE colonial period left India with the foundations to grow and operate an effective economy. Property rights, free trade, fixed exchange rates, a uniform currency system, uniform weights and measures, open capital markets and a well developed system of railways and telegraphs, as well as a modern legal system, were all beneficial to growth.
Now.....
Wikipedia's Article on the Indian Economy
The colonial rule brought along a favourable institutional environment that guaranteed property rights, ensured free trade, had fixed exchange rates, uniform currency system, uniform weights and measures, open capital markets, well developed system of railways and telegraphs, a bureaucracy free from political interferences and a modern legal system.
I know this probably goes on a lot, but shouldn't he have referenced Wikipedia, even with Copylefting?
Congratulations to Pamri, Saksham, Nichalp, Kaal and other editors who helped bringing this article to FA status. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 03:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Have added a line. Didn't know how to add the reference. If the line is kept, could someone add this link? Saksham 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
What is meant by "disguised unemployment"? People feigning to get benefits? -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you to all users who made this page. I learnt several things. Fine. -- MissingLinks 08:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
there is no mention of domestic trade in pre-colonial times in the history section. and coupled with the statements that village "economies was largely isolated and self-sustaining" and "Superstitions about foreign travel ...", i think gives a misleading impression of a lack of trade and industry in those times. does anybody point to info abt domestic trade tht can be included.
the statement that colonial rule brought "favourable institutional environment that guaranteed property rights, ensured free trade,uniform currency system, uniform weights and measures, open capital markets, ... a bureaucracy free from political interferences and a modern legal system." is, i think, somewhat far-fetched -
i think the statement needs some POV work.
Doldrums 14:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The economy [of Tamil kingdoms], however, was centred around foreign trade, and there is evidence of significant contact with Europe. Large hoards of Roman coins and evidence of the presence of Roman traders have been discovered at Karur and Arikamedu, and there is evidence that at least two embassies were sent to the Roman Emperor Augustus by Pandya kings. Potsherds with Tamil writing have also been found in excavations on the Red Sea, suggesting the presence of Tamil merchants there (Mahadevan 2003). An anonymous 1st century traveler's account written in Greek, Periplus Maris Erytraei, describes the ports of the Pandya and Chera kingdoms and the trade with them in substantial detail, and indicates that the chief exports of the Tamils in those days were pepper, malabathrum, pearls, ivory, silk, spikenard, diamonds, sapphires, and tortoiseshell (Casson 1989).
I have reordered the 5 Ind.cos. by Market capitalisation (MC) table as per their Forbes Global 2000 ranking, since MC is pretty volatile (since its based on stock movement) and hence does not give as clear a picture as the forbes list, which ranks companies on parameters like Sales, Profit, Assets and Market Values, besides being global. I have moved this sentence here, since it does not fit in the industry para. Will readd it in some form or reword it. In terms of Market capitalisation, India remains one of the top 15 markets in the world with $450 billion in mid-2005. [1] -- Pamri • Talk 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I propose removing lists for 2005 and 2006 and just keeping the list for 2007. Abhiag 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, congrats on having one of the most clearly worded intros of all the featured articles I've checked so far. With only a few minor changes the intro was entirely (and mostly correctly) machine parsable by link grammar. One little bump I ran into was the follow text:
It isn't completely clear which of the list has decreased. Commons sense would have me assume the last, but only because it seems unlikly that all would have decreased by 10%. I'd like to adjust the sentence so the parsing is non-ambigious, but I need to know which actually decreased! Thanks -- Gmaxwell 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the para on national income estimates to Economic history of India. While the data is interesting, it really does not add much here and unnecessarily lengthens the history section. Contrast it with the two other estimates added, which are to the point and act as background info. -- Pamri • Talk 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed how the Colonial section suggests that the British introduced "uniform weights and measures" to India, when India has clearly already had its own (post-Harappan) system of weights and measures, which is described in the following article: Hindu units of measurement. Since the reference to weights and measures doesn't appear to be true, I'm going to remove it until someone can prove otherwise. - Jagged 85, 18/01/2006
As it stands the graph shows a comparison of the GDP percapita of various South Asian countries, and South Korea as a percentage to the US, but it only goes up to the year 1995, it would be nice if the chart showed the effects of India's liberalization from 1995 to 2005. I did some calculations using data here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
But I am not a registered user so5 I don't want to update the image.
Not sure how to upload images. @Dhruval 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Article like this is going to need lots of updates over time. I am going to make a list of data that needs to be updated (I would do it but I find the citation style way too confusing to bother myself).
That avialable in the CIA factbook is just an estimate and not the real GDP growth rate. Chanakyathegreat 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
India is in the 152'th place from your link there not 155!!!
This article is too long and cumbersome. Its time to create stubs for national labour market and its associated regulations and laws. Anwar saadat 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The introductory section claims that poverty has reduced by 10% since the 80s, a claim that is flatly contradicted by the section on poverty. Also, the point about " The question of whether economic reforms has reduced or increased poverty has fuelled debates" stands just by itself without mentioning the corresponding figures (39% to 26%). I'd change them myself, but I just wanted to confirm if it is here through some sort of consensus. — Ravikiran 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"However, India's huge population results in a relatively low per capita income of $3,100 at PPP." It's not like India has a set GDP and the huge population makes the per capita income low. Wouldn't it be more correct to say India's huge population results in the large GDP numbers despite the low per capita income? I don't particularly think it should be phrased the way I put it either, but the way it is now bothers me. Any thoughts?
Fdi india seems an odd standalone article. How about merging it into the External trade and investment section here. Cordless Larry 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Anwar, your latest edits [2] probably mean that these should start having subarticles of their own. I don't think that we need those exact figures in tables in the main article. — Ravikiran 06:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made one round of copyedits [3]. While some are grammar changes, many involve removal of overqualifications (we don't have to compare with other developing countries every time we say something negative about India) and other changes that I think will tighten up the stuff, but also change the meaning subtly. Please have a look. In particular, I have rephrased the sentence on poverty that was bothering me above and changed "The question of whether economic reforms has reduced or increased poverty" to "The question of whether economic reforms have reduced poverty or not" because AFAIK no one has been claiming that it worsened poverty, only that it has not alleviated poverty enough.
UPDATE ARTICLE
According to the new World Bank figures, India's poverty rate is 35% and not 25% as it is usually typed here. Can someone please rewrite that part of the article and change it? Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Napoleon12 10:38 am, 08 Jul 2006