The Rise of Asia’s Middle Class: Why India will have a larger middle-class than China by 2030

[pampango]

http://www.livemint.com/2010/08/22201344/India-has-been-doing-quite-wel.html?atype=tp

"(W)hen we discuss the Asian middle class at present, it is still at a very low income class (by) global standards. ... But in terms of the absolute amount of consumption and how we locate consumption, (Asia is) very different. The important thing is with the big population size in Asia, basically in India and China, even if each person spends a small amount, if you combine all together, it is big. That is why we say Asia will play the traditional role of the US and Europe of being the primary global consumer. Our focus is, in 2030, about 43% of the world wide consumption will be done by the Asian consumers.

Asian consumers, especially in China, had higher savings where household consumption is only 37% of GDP, which is very low even compared with India or other Asian countries. Eventually, their savings rate will decline and consumption rate will increase, but only gradually. Also, that will be supported by government provision for a social safety net, which will encourage consumers to spend more.

...in most societies, the rise of the middle class actually helped in reducing income inequality. Many countries start with a small group of rich people with huge poor masses. This is (typically) a very polarized society. The important thing is that the huge majority of poor people should move to the middle class. What we have seen in the last two decades, for example in India, (is) more than 200 million poor people moved from poverty to middle class. In China, 800 million people moved from absolute poverty to middle class. So, in terms of income distribution, the rise of the middle class will solve the polarization. And (with) these people with more stable income, there is scope for income equality. If you focus on rich people, then rich people become richer. Basically, the concern is how to achieve income equality while continuing to help poor people get out of poverty.

In a way, India’s progress will be faster than China as long as India maintains its strong economic growth in the next two decades. India will achieve, among other things, reduction of poverty and increasing the middle class. That is good for India and good for the global economy.

India's equality in income distribution (36.8) is actually better than ours (40.8). China's is worse than both at 46.9. India is doing a much better job than China to date at maintaining a decent level of income equality while it develops. (They are closer to Canada's level of social equality (32.7) than we are.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[4dsc]

1. No way this happens

Sorry to burst their bubble here but there's not enough oil left in the world to allow this to occur. Peak oil production will take care of any dreams these people may have about building another consumer based middle class.

[Vehl]

5. the US level of consumerism is not sustainable anyways......but there is Thorium..

considering the Carbon footprint of a child born here in the US will be 400 times that of one born in India.

maybe this would be a chance for the Asian giants to not make the environmental mistakes still being made, and live in a sustainable manner.

This is the reason why India is heavily investing in Thorium based Nuclear Reactors and have quite a few Up and running for the past couple of decades. In fact they lead the world in Thorium reactors.

Interestingly enough 25% of the world's thorium stockpiles are In India, according to the USGS.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

India's Kakrapar-1 reactor is the world's first reactor which uses thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core. India, which has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves, is developing a 300 MW prototype of a thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). The prototype is expected to be fully operational by 2011, following which five more reactors will be constructed. Considered to be a global leader in thorium-based fuel, India's new thorium reactor is a fast-breeder reactor and uses a plutonium core rather than an accelerator to produce neutrons. As accelerator-based systems can operate at sub-criticality they could be developed too, but that would require more research. India currently envisages meeting 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2050.

Known exploitable thorium reserves in India are about 360,000 tons - and actual reserves are probably considerably higher - which is enough to fuel every man woman and child on the entire planet for all energy needs including transport - even at the obscene consumption levels now practiced worldwide - for about 60 years. It is enough to fuel India's current energy consumption, about 19 exajoules, for about 1,600 years.

PS: democratic underground member NNadir has written extensively on this subject

check his journal out
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NNadir

[Subdivisions]

16. So, when will we be able to pump this thorium into the trucks that

deliver "just in time" to our grocery stores?

[Vehl]

28. i meant that India has found a way to at least support 30% of its energy needs

...30% of its projected energy needs by 2020.

30% is a huge number. America has stopped most nuclear energy research after the three mile island incident

and thanks to bush policies it also lost its lead in genetic research



religion and right wing politics have dealt a huge blow to this nation.



and the irony is that the world's first nuclear reactor was a thorium one...but apparently uranium was "cheaper' so they scrapped it.

[Subdivisions]

15. Man! I'm so glad to see someone that gets it...

Most people a too stupid to realize this and I've pretty much given up trying to sound the alarm. Even right here on DU no one wants to EVER discuss this situation. Oil production has been declining YOY since 2005 and people just continue on their merry way as if there isn't a problem. In the UK, they are in an emergency state over this and yet here in the U.S. we keep right on heading for the cliff.

All oil imports to the U.S. (which provides 75% of our oil) will end by the year 2037, yet no one cares. I just don't get it.

[Vehl]

17. more like the oil companies dont want this information out....lest people start looking for alternti

lest people start looking for alternative fuels.

every time they have this "America's natural gas" ad (the one with the lame "idea" icon)on tv i get pissed off.These companies want to make sure they milk it till the last drop of oil.


there is simply no way humans can sustain this level of energy guzzling lifestyle unless we find some drastic new ways of making energy

[Subdivisions]

19. Well, the thing with alternatives to oil is that...there aren't any. If there were,

we would have seen it already. After all, an alternative would have to be as logistics-friendly as oil and would have to be found and produced in quantities that would compare in volume with the 85 million barrels of oil we use globally every day.

Many will say, well there are alternatives that the oil companies have bought and shelved to protect oil profits. But what they don't think about is that, if there were a replacement for oil, they would be making profits from it, even if it replaces oil and especially if it eliminates the costs associated with drilling.

There simply is no replacement for oil and accessible oil is running out. We lived without oil or an alternative for thousands of years and we will live without the rich energy density of oil again - within many of our lifetimes.

[Vehl]

21. Nope, I disagree. scientific breakthroughs of this scale need $$$$$ and a lot of it

Well, the thing with alternatives to oil is that...there aren't any. If there were we would have seen it already. After all, an alternative would have to be as logistics-friendly as oil and would have to be found and produced in quantities that would compare in volume with the 85 million barrels of oil we use globally every day.

^^ The reasoning is faulty here. How much money do you think have been put into alternative energy use in the past 60 years? compared to the amount put into other stuff? its almost negligible.

Why do you think the Manhattan project(or the moon mission) (and the resultant nuclear fission reactor tech) needed MASSIVE funding and intellectual capital? So much so that the best brains of an Entire nations has to be put into it for it to succeed?

have we even seen something approaching 5% of the effort that went into the Manhattan project in recent times? Nope. People were content with fossil fuels...and any investment that went into energy..was mostly into new drilling/oil prospecting technology.


spend 25% of the Annual Iraq War Budget into fusion, and other technologies...and we might see some results.

to claim that there are not technologies is like saying that one wants to win the lottery without even buying a ticket in the first place. Furthermore, a lot of the easier fundamental sciences have been already discovered....the rest need huge funding...(ex Cerns new accelerator)

Many will say, well there are alternatives that the oil companies have bought and shelved to protect oil profits. But what they don't think about is that, if there were a replacement for oil, they would be making profits from it, even if it replaces oil and especially if it eliminates the costs associated with drilling.

You give these companies too much credit. From what i see...no major corporation is willing to puts tens if not hundreds of BILLIONS of $$ into researching technologies or plan a couple of decades ahead. Also, why would the companies want to give up oil fields they paid a heft sum to lease/buy? and all the Billions in oil-related infrastructure? nope. They would stick to the black gold as its a reliable source of riches for them.

furthermore,entire fields of nuclear fission/fusion reactor research were dropped like hot potatoes the moment the Three Mile Island accident happened. Right now, the USA is not amongst the top contenders in the this field...thanks to decades of fear-mongering. this is something the oil companies love..after all..it means more $$ for them.



unless countries spend a considerable amount of money on huge national endeavors/or something similar in scale, for new sources of power...we will be stuck with oil...not for the lack of technologies...but for lack of trying and due to short-sightedness.

:(


and needless to say...none of this would be worthwhile if we do not change our wasteful habits.

[Subdivisions]

24. There is no scalable replacement for oil. And, though it may very well

be possible to develop a technology that can be used in the 750,000,000 vehicles and other machines in the world at the rate of 85 million barrels per day equivalent, it ain't here yet. A new Manhattan Project? In today's socio-political and broke-assed environment, when we need to be doing it already? Yeahhhhh, right! 99% percent of the people, you and Kitty included, don't even know theres a problem to be solved by the means you describe. So, how are you going to get any support behind it? Answer: You ain't! Hell, you can't even get the left and right wings of the Democratice Party to agree on things and we're the ONLY ones that would even consider moving away from oil via some New Manhattan Project, much less actually get one off the ground and rolling.

Keep on dreaming, though.

[Vehl]

27. Just cos the US is not willing to put money into it does not mean other nations wont.

The Curse of Today's America is its short sightedness. People simply do not look ahead at all...not even 10 years down the road...let alone 30.

Unless there is a National effort that pumps a lot of money and expertize into a quest for new energy sources(like fusion for example) there is no way anyone will come up with an alternative.

as i said earlier...the easy science is already researched...now it needs $$$$ and loads of it.

There is no scalable replacement for oil.

Who will care about a oil if Fusion is perfected? Almost everything that runs on oil now can easily run on electricity. the only downside will be the bankruptcy of the oil companies....ill not be shedding a tear for them though.


But the point here is that nations like China and India have "national energy initiatives" and they have been pumping a lot of $$ and expertise into it. I really do not think America has anything similar to that concerted effort today. It only has multiple companies doing piecemeal research...with the government not doing much. The blame should be put on the republicans...and the notion that they have ingrained upon this country...that somehow anything could be done by private companies...they fail to see that when it comes to crucial national-security/strategic decisions/projects the government could do much more than the individual companies can


Just imagine what will happen if one of those two countries actually make a breakthrough in their researches? The world as we know it will change overnight.

A new Manhattan Project? In today's socio-political and broke-assed environment, when we need to be doing it already? Yeahhhhh, right! 99% percent of the people, you and Kitty included, don't even know theres a problem to be solved by the means you describe.

Well...that's the problem of the people aint it? one has to break a few eggs before one can make an omelet.
But if people are adamant on not changing...or rethinking their priorities...they will just have to find out that hindsight is always correct.


IMHO America has lost the "national sense" and the desire to do something world-changing after the late 60s....the moon mission was the last one...and that's it. now people are content to just live the way they are living...complacency born out of abundance i guess. countries which do not have such luxuries however, forge ahead in seeking to better their lot

[KittyWampus]

22. you are wrong. Thermal Depolymerization turns garbage, ANY garbage, into fuel.

You are so totally wrong it boggles the mind.

Would we need to de-centralize our fuel production in conjunction with our waste collection? Yes.

Would we need to bring our economies back to local production in general? Yes.

But the problem with humans for the last 100 years or so is we have been exploiting extracted fuel and neglecting to turn our garbage into useable fuel.

[Subdivisions]

23. You are the one that's wrong. Else I'd be able to put that shit in my truck right now.

All that shit you said hasn't been done. And it won't be done on a scale equal to or greater than 85 million barrels per day. Also, can that thermal bullshit you're talking about be used to make toothbrushes? Medical supplies? Etc? NO! At best, you can further process lighter oil-based products with shorter and shorter carbon chains, like parafin and aromatics. You can't make syringes with it. You can't make plastic packaging and bottles and milk jugs (read: garbage) with it.

And so, one critical point you left out is that IT TAKES FUCKING OIL TO MAKE GARBAGE!

Edited to add: Tell it to the experts. I'm only repeating what they have said. The UK is http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change">holding high-level meetings on this very problem while people like you, and the U.S. government, ignore the issue altogether, hoping for some miracle substance that will take over at just the right minute. Do you believe in cold fusion too?

Now, you can be fucking shitty to me if you want. But I'm as sick and fucking tired of it as I can be and you're sure as hell going to get back exactly what you give. Why are you so shitty anyway? Why do you talk to me so shitty EVERY SINGLE TIME you respond to one of my posts? Do you have a problem with me, Kitty? Did I do something to piss you off? Or is this just your normal demeanor when having a civil discussion with someone?

[trying_to_be_logical]

25. Another perspective

My understanding of thermal depolymerization (TD) is that it CAN break down plastic/garbage, but it can also break down organic material. That includes leaves, cut grass, doodoo (trying to avoid being offensive here), etc.

As far as why we don't do it now, I think a lot of that has to do with startup costs as well as cost compared to the existing solution. There exists a lot of infrastructure that has already been paid for that makes what we do today the more cost effective solution. TD will still require R+D before it becomes a viable solution. Probably the cost of oil will have to rise more too. As supplies dwindle, that's bound to happen naturally.

The bottom line is that as long as we have plants, we'll be able to make oil. There's a good chance it won't be as plentiful and that it will cost more and we may need to change our usage habits accordingly, but it will be there. After all, all the oil we're burning now came from plants and animals from millions of years ago.

[Rage for Order]

18. You're assuming oil will play the same role in 30 years that it does today

I think (hope) that we've reached a tipping point in being energy-conscious, recycling, and looking for renewable/sustainable fuel sources. Not that everyone has become a full-on environmentalist, but small changes adopted by huge numbers of people can have a very large impact. The simple act of bringing one's own reusable bags to the grocery store makes a huge difference when you multiply it by 100 million shoppers, to use one example.

[Subdivisions]

20. First, we have NOT reached a tipping point...

Almost no one who can still afford to fuel their vehicle(s) has reached any tipping point of energy-conciousness, with the exception of some UK MPs and business leaders who are busy planning their strategy while the rest of the world happily motors on.

"...looking for renewable/sustainable fuel sources"? How long has it taken to find those sources? How much longer will it take? Are you waiting for a miracle substance? Are you hoping for cold fusion engines to move us around? WHEN? The answer: NEVER. If it was there, we'd have found it by now. But, if it is, it better be discovered and developed in record time as the oil is already running out and production has been declining for five years now.

Don't forget that there is oil in everything you see. EVERYTHING. You can't wipe your ass with toilet paper without loads of oil being involved from the planting of the trees to their harvest. Those trees are then moved to the mills using trucks filled with oil-based products. Then more oil is used in producing the energy to operate the mills. Then the finished TP has to be hauled by even more trucks to get it to the store so you can buy it. And it's the same for everything you can put your hands on in every store everywhere. And I haven't even gone into the oil derivatives. like the plastic your TP is wrapped in when you buy it. The number of products made from oil, some of which we must have in order to live and survive, like medical supplies, is astounding.

THERE IS NO ALERNATIVE TO OIL. Oil production is in decline. And people here are in profound denial. Many more, those who understand the concept of peak oil, are at Kubler-Ross condition number three: Bargaining - wherein they dream of a miracle substance, which has yet to be found, that will save them from reaching stage four.

[Bitwit1234]

2. Of course OUR corporations won't give them as much

money for doing OUR jobs as we got, but they ought to improve their lot.

[area51]

13. +1 n/t

[Vehl]

3. good article. Shows how democracies will fare better in the longer run

one of the main reasons that some economists believe that India will overtake Chinese economy around 2040/50 is the much larger pool of working age population.

the one child policy in china has/is resulting in a large aged population which has to be supported by a much smaller working population.

the burden of the aged will be quite devastating to Chinese economy....as basically one person has to provide for (via taxes or otherwise) at least 2 retired people,apart from his/her own expenses.

India's equality in income distribution (36.8) is actually better than ours (40.8). China's is worse than both at 46.9. India is doing a much better job than China to date at maintaining a decent level of income equality while it develops. (They are closer to Canada's level of social equality (32.7) than we are.)

^^ this is an interesting piece of news.

[Selatius]

4. There's a lot in there about growth, but what about sustainability? Energy is no longer cheap.

If India or China seriously expect to push the majority of their population into the middle class, they're going to have to do a better job of identifying future energy sources outside of depleted fossil fuels. Everything on a large scale takes money and energy to achieve. They may or may not have the money, but they haven't yet answered where they are going to get that energy from or even how they are going to conserve or use efficiently what energy sources they do have, and if they want to live sustainably, they must realize that population growth will necessarily stress and then deplete whatever natural resources they have.

[LAGC]

6. Well, in China's case, at least...

They have a shitload of natural resources to fall back upon. And with their One Child policy, I think they have a better shot at sustainability than does India. Indeed, over-population in India could lead to some very ugly consequences within the next 50 years, war and famine being two of them.

I think China has better long-term prospects, even if India's economy is growing more rapidly now.

[Vehl]

8. unless china makes it at least a "two child" policy...it will leads to problems

two children per couple is ideal and would result in "replacement level" population growth only. so the ideal number governments should yearn for is 2. more would result in population growth...less would put a huge burden on the working population.


check post 3

[Vehl]

7. check post number 5. nt

[Selatius]

9. Well, that's 30% done through Thorium reactors. How do you answer the other 70%?

That's still a mighty gap.

[Vehl]

10. sure is a big gap. but people have to learn to live in a more sustainable manner as well

A lot of things we use/utilize in the name of "ease of use" and "disposable" can be avoided....it would definitely reduce the carbon footprints of people.

hopefully these developing nations will not fall into the same trap many others have fallen into...of consumerism without concern for the environment. :(


lets keep our fingers crossed the the cold fusion research or something similar results in success. if not humans sure are in for a tough time

ps: seems like Russia is about to make a killing with its gargantuan natural gas reserves

[Selatius]

11. It's a cliché but, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

Until a radically powerful source of energy is found (like fusion), we're going to have to make do with things like solar power and wind and other renewable sources of energy. It probably won't generate as much power as burning fossil fuels. I mean, how much solar power can you generate on a rainy day vs. a clear one? How much wind power on a relatively windless day? But I'd rather accept a lower standard of living if it meant sustainability vs. altering the planet's climate permanently.

I'm not even sure the planet can even sustain all 6,000,000,000 humans at current energy consumption levels, and if it cannot, this does not bode well for everybody, China and India included.

[Vehl]

12. yep

Until a radically powerful source of energy is found (like fusion), we're going to have to make do with things like solar power and wind and other renewable sources of energy. It probably won't generate as much power as burning fossil fuels. I mean, how much solar power can you generate on a rainy day vs. a clear one? How much wind power on a relatively windless day? But I'd rather accept a lower standard of living if it meant sustainability vs. altering the planet's climate permanently.

yep, i agree. There is no way wind power or solar is goin to replace fossil fuel. we need some other fuel source...fusion..if possible..would be awesome.

However, i like the new houses which have solar panels on the roofs. I know of a person who has almost 0 electricity bill during summer(and almost 0 during non winter months) here in cali..thanks to his solar panels. Solar might probably be part of the solution...but certainly cannot be the main thing we should reply on.

I'm not even sure the planet can even sustain all 6,000,000,000 humans at current energy consumption levels, and if it cannot, this does not bode well for everybody, China and India included.

I don't think so either...we are already over-crowded. Its one of the reasons im almost vegetarian now(except for the occasional seafood). Meat needs 4 times more energy per pound/calorie-content to produce than vegetarian alternatives.

[Vehl]

14. seems like they restarted the cold fusion research..which is a good thing

found it while googling for cold fusion

A 2008 demonstration in Bangalore by Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata revived some interest for cold fusion research in India. Projects have commenced at several centers such as the Bhabha Atomic Research Center and the National Institute of Advanced Studies has also recommended the Indian government to revive this research.

This is good news:) I'm a firm believer in the notion that Cold Fusion would work...and is probably one of the only ways we humans can fulfill our future energy needs.

The Bhaba Atomic Research Center is one of India's premier nuclear research centers and had the first research reactor in Asia...even before the soviets and the Chinese.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html
http://www.barc.ernet.in/index.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Well, for one thing, they're not a dictatorship. That helps. -nt