BRICS nations to see highest surge in millionaire count over the next decade

[Ajay0]

The BRICS economic coalition of emerging markets is about to see an 85% surge in millionaire count over the next decade, far exceeding any other group of nations.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/brics-to-see-highest-surge-in-millionaire-population-over-the-next-decade.html

Quote

 

Millionaire population in the BRICS countries will see a substantial surge over the next decade contributing to the largest increase in wealth across any group of nations, according to a recent report by Henley & Partners.

Millionaire count in the BRICS countries — which together hold $45 trillion in investable wealth — is forecast to rise by 85% over the next 10 years, the investment migration consultancy noted in its report published in partnership with global intelligence firm New World Wealth.

The BRICS bloc, which is composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, has expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates this year, with Saudi Arabia also set to join the bloc.

 

 

[Ajay0]

With 169 billionaires , India has the third largest number of billionaires in the world and more than Switzerland, Canada and 6 other developed nations.

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/at-169-india-has-more-billionaires-than-switzerland-canada-uk-japan-italy-france-australia-germany-11682751568069.html

As per the data, India is home to 169 billionaires--the third-highest in the world. Whereas America tops the list with 735 billionaires, followed by China with 495 billionaires.

[bebotalk]

This isn't necessarily good. It just means wealth is concentrated in the higher echelons. Not all billionaires re necessarily productive or own businesses that hire many people. India for one has arguably the worst poverty on Earth. Having more wealthy people shouldn't be something to brag about in that condition. 

[Ajay0]

7 hours ago, bebotalk said:

This isn't necessarily good. It just means wealth is concentrated in the higher echelons. Not all billionaires re necessarily productive or own businesses that hire many people. India for one has arguably the worst poverty on Earth. Having more wealthy people shouldn't be something to brag about in that condition. 

As per Forbes, India along with China was the richest nations on earth in the sixteenth century.

The Indian ocean is the only ocean named after a living nation and ancient civilization due to the heavy commerical traffic that took place there for world nations seeking to trade with India. Both the America's were discovered by sailors desperately seeking a new trade route with India.

Unfortunately under exploitative western colonialism in the last two centuries which wrecked its domestic economy and rural industries, and promotion of foreign goods at expense of local ones, India has descended from being the world's richest nation to one of the poorest on earth.

After independence , it has lifted off again slowly and steadily and is the fastest growing economy in the world at the moment, minting billionaires and millionaires each day, and has replaced the UK as the fifth largest economy in the world. It is now forecast to becoming the biggest economy a few decades from now at its present growth rate, replacing the U.S. as well.

https://time.com/6297539/how-india-economy-will-surpass-us/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/india-largest-economy-2052/articleshow/105576942.cms

https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/india-to-overtake-us-worlds-second-largest-economy-goldman-sachs-report-2404721-2023-07-11

So the 'worst poverty' that you have perceived in India is man-made, artificially induced and showcases the dangers of exploitative colonialism and unethical capitalist framework which focusses on profits at all costs.

This is the lesson which India's poverty should teach the world so that no nation experiences these sort of issues again .

Edited February 29 by Ajay0

[bebotalk]

8 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

As per Forbes, India along with China was the richest nations on earth in the sixteenth century.

The Indian ocean is the only ocean named after a living nation and ancient civilization due to the heavy commerical traffic that took place there for world nations seeking to trade with India. Both the America's were discovered by sailors desperately seeking a new trade route with India.

Unfortunately under exploitative western colonialism in the last two centuries which wrecked its domestic economy and rural industries, and promotion of foreign goods at expense of local ones, India has descended from being the world's richest nation to one of the poorest on earth.

After independence , it has lifted off again slowly and steadily and is the fastest growing economy in the world at the moment, minting billionaires and millionaires each day, and has replaced the UK as the fifth largest economy in the world. It is now forecast to becoming the biggest economy a few decades from now at its present growth rate, replacing the U.S. as well.

https://time.com/6297539/how-india-economy-will-surpass-us/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/india-largest-economy-2052/articleshow/105576942.cms

https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/india-to-overtake-us-worlds-second-largest-economy-goldman-sachs-report-2404721-2023-07-11

So the 'worst poverty' that you have perceived in India is man-made, artificially induced and showcases the dangers of exploitative colonialism and unethical capitalist framework which focusses on profits at all costs.

This is the lesson which India's poverty should teach the world so that no nation experiences these sort of issues again .

I'm not sure what the relevance is here.

I don't really see how the number of billionaires matter. Yes, it shows great wealth production, but in limited spheres. An excess of wealth at the top of any society isn't healthy. I also don't see the link to colonialism. I'd guarantee there was great inequality in Mughal times. 

India has a huge population so it's natural for it to have a large economy. This isn't a great feat. Your point is tangential, and based on nationalist bias and propaganda. 

[Ajay0]

On 2/29/2024 at 3:05 AM, bebotalk said:

This isn't necessarily good. It just means wealth is concentrated in the higher echelons. Not all billionaires re necessarily productive or own businesses that hire many people. India for one has arguably the worst poverty on Earth. Having more wealthy people shouldn't be something to brag about in that condition. 

 Along with substantial increase in billionaires and millionaires, hundreds of millions of people have also been lifted from poverty levels in the last decade.

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-registers-remarkable-reduction-in-poverty-415-million-people-out-of-poverty-level-in-just-15-years-un-11689055801549.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/economy/story/un-applauds-indias-remarkable-reduction-in-poverty-415-mn-people-came-out-of-poverty-in-15-years-389159-2023-07-11

Quote

 

415 million people came out of poverty in India within 15 years between the years 2005/2006 and 2019/2021, with incidence falling from 55.1 per cent in 2005/2006 to 16.4 per cent in 2019/2021, the United Nations (UN) said on Tuesday. 

UN highlighted that this is a remarkable achievement by India.

 

Also many of the billionaires and millionaires are also rags to riches stories, and not inheritors of business empires.

https://yourstory.com/2023/05/rags-to-riches-inspiring-tales-of-indian-entrepreneurs
 

Quote

I also don't see the link to colonialism. I'd guarantee there was great inequality in Mughal times. 

The Mughals became Indian themselves and adopted people and farmer friendly policies which stablised their rule and prevented revolts. 

The Mughal emperor Akbar was known for his religious tolerance and administrative skills, patronage of culture and arts, and interest in the various religions of the world and inviting various religious scholars and saints to his court. His reign is considered to be among the 'Golden Ages' in India for its general prosperity in the material and cultural realms.

Western colonialists like the Portuguese in Goa created the infamous and brutal Goan Inquisition that persecuted so called heretics, Jews, Hindus and Muslims .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

Voltaire had this to say on the Goan inquisition, 'Goa is sadly famous for its inquisition, equally contrary to humanity and commerce. The Portuguese monks made us believe that the people worshiped the devil, and it is they who have served him."

The British created man-made famines which killed millions like the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 due to excessive taxation, Indigo famine where farmers were forced to plant commercially profitable indigo instead of food crops, Odisha famine of 1866 which came about due to British inaction and complacency in terms of famine relief. 

Similarities between the Irish famine of 1846–49 and the later Indian famines of the last part of the 19th century were seen. In both countries, there were no impediments to the export of food during times of famines.Lessons learnt from the Irish famine were not seen in the correspondence on policy-making during the 1870s in India.

Indian industries which produced goods and textiles prized in India and around the world were shut down forcibly so as to ensure no competition for foreign goods dumped in India in the local market. 

https://www.sgbgatelier.com/world/2019/11/21/5-ways-imperial-britain-crippled-indian-handlooms

 

Quote

I'm not sure what the relevance is here.

 The relevance is that the world's economic centre of gravity is going to shift back to the east as it used to be for milleniums save for a few  recent two to three centuries. I suppose it is past momentum in action.

Edited March 1 by Ajay0

[bebotalk]

Yes, India and China were once large economies in world terms. but they always had the biggest populations. Again, that's no real achievement. More people are producing nad consuming goods and services. 

How do you know what poverty levels were like in the Mughal period? or before then? Considering caste was unquestioned back then, it stands that it may well have been as bad if not worse. Hence why it's just an Indian nationalist bias that deliberately refuses to account for any kind of fact.

I don't know why you're conflating religious tolerance with poverty or wealth. The two aren't necessarily inherently connected. 

Billionaires who made their wealth can still hoard or not contribute to wider whole, or worsen inequality. Not everybody who has come from rags to riches will necessarily be benevolent. 

Your points just skip over established facts, and fill in facts with biases and propaganda. 

Global poverty rates, especially in third world countries, has been falling for a while now. This is due to globalisation, increased healthcare quality, etc. That's an Indian-specific achievement and linked to increased globalisation. 

 

 

[Ajay0]

20 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Yes, India and China were once large economies in world terms. but they always had the biggest populations. Again, that's no real achievement. More people are producing nad consuming goods and services. 

India and China developed large populations as they were ancient civilizations and enjoyed superior civilizational processes for a longer period of time.  This is an achievement in itself. 

2500 years back when the Buddha and Mahavira were teaching advanced philosophy and metaphysics in India, the so-called Europeans were living in caves and forests and had primitive and barbaric standards of civilization and culture, except for the Greeks.

Quote

How do you know what poverty levels were like in the Mughal period?

I have stated of the general prosperity enjoyed by India under the Mughal emperor Akbar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Mughal_Empire#:~:text=The main base of the,artisans to enter larger markets.

Quote

The economy in the Indian Subcontinent during the Mughal Empire era performed just as it did in ancient times, though now it would face the stress of extensive regional tensions. It was described as large and prosperous. India producing about 28% of the world's industrial output up until the 18th century. While at the start of 17th century, the economic expansion within Mughal territories become the largest and surpassed Qing dynasty and Europe, where from Bengal Subah alone, the province statistically has contributed to 12% of Gross domestic product. by 1700s, Mughals had approximately 24 percent share of world's economy. They grew from 22.7% in 1600, which at the end of 16th century, has surpassed China to become the world's largest GDP.

 

Quote

 or before then? 

In ancient times as well, India enjoyed general prosperity under the Mauryas and Mauryan emperor Ashoka the Great.

https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/under-ashoka-chandragupta-india-accounted-for-32-of-the-worlds-gdp/1451997/
 

Quote

 

Under the Mauryas, especially Chandragupta and Ashoka, India was one of the wealthiest political entities of the ancient world. One economic historian has estimated that in the year 1 CE, India accounted for 32 per cent of the world’s GDP (and one-third of the world’s population), and this share may have been even higher in Maurya times. This period saw the expansion of agriculture, the growth of population and settlement sizes, craft specialization, the emergence of writing and a surge of internal and external trade, thanks to an extensive network of land and sea trade routes.

Our knowledge of Mauryan society and economy comes from several sources: Megasthenes’ Indika, Ashoka’s inscriptions, Buddhist and Jain texts and the Arthashastra. Although there is disagreement among scholars about the historicity of this work, Mark McClish and Patrick Olivelle write: ‘The teachings of the Arthashastra, as decontextualized and idealized as they may be, also serve as an important record of practices and customs current in Kautilya’s time.’

 

 

Fa Hien, the Chinese traveller in the fourth century AD, travelled in India under the Gupta empire and had stated on the general prosperity he perceived...

https://selfstudyhistory.com/2020/05/01/foreign-accounts-fa-hiens-account/

"The people were rich and prosperous and seemed to emulate each other in the practice of virtue. Charitable institutions were numerous and rest houses for travelers were provided on the highway. The capital possessed an excellent hospital."

He had also commented that upon asking for water, he was offered milk by various households in India, reflecting the general prosperity in the country.

Quote

Considering caste was unquestioned back then, it stands that it may well have been as bad if not worse.

Caste system in India is a feudal system similar to that in Europe, Japan and Korea. (Even now, European aristocrats tend to keep themselves distinct from the commoners and marry among themselves as a rule.)

The caste system has no sanction in the Vedas, the original Hindu scriptures which preaches the equality and fraternity of all human beings.  Majority of the Vedic sages came from the lower economic groups .

The Vedic sage, Satyakama Jabala, who composed portions of the Vedas, was the illegitimate son of a prostitute. He was taken as a disciple by his Guru on account of his character and honesty which the Guru perceived as signs of merit even though he was of illegitimate lineage.

The caste system came up later on as a social system in order to preserve, consolidate and develop knowledge systems of each profession. Universities were not wide-spread in ancient times, and it was easier for the father to teach his sons and nephews the technical details of his profession.

This enabled a certain specialisation of disciplines. For example, mathematics as in the numeral system, zero and basic mathematics used around the world commonly were developed in India. 

I am not an advocate of the caste system as it is obviously obsolete in today's world, but it had its relevance in ancient times as a practical system. In todays world however, you can choose any profession, and the best universities in the world teaching that course by virtue of enhanced transportation and logistics. 

The caste system continues at present by mere tradition alone as an extended family and social security system, much like tribal affiliations.

The caste system has been subjected to criticism by reformatory Hindu sects like the Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Lingayats and Brahmakumaris.

Caste  is also not recognized by the constitution and caste discrimination is punishable as per law. There are reservations and quotas for the lower castes in education and employment in government sectors, as well as funds and laws for their empowerment. And this has enabled many of the underprivileged castes to climb up the social ladder. 

The present prime minister and president of India hail from the lower castes.

Inter-caste, inter-religious and international marriages are slowly and steadily eroding caste as well. 

Edited March 2 by Ajay0

[Ajay0]

19 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Billionaires who made their wealth can still hoard or not contribute to wider whole, or worsen inequality. Not everybody who has come from rags to riches will necessarily be benevolent. 

Statistically speaking, the greatest philanthropist the world has seen in the twentieth century is an Indian.

 Jamshedji Tata  topped the list of the world's top philanthropists of the 20th century with an estimated donation of $102 billion adjusted for inflation. He donated extensively to education and healthcare, and is head and shoulders above Bill Gates, Buffet and Rockefeller.

https://www.news18.com/business/why-jamsetji-tata-earned-the-moniker-of-the-biggest-philanthropist-in-the-world-8734693.html

https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-this-man-jamsetji-tata-donated-rs-829734-crore-not-mukesh-ambani-ratan-tata-azim-premji-shiv-nadar-adani-3055795

Quote

According to a list prepared by EdelGive Foundation and Hurun Report, Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, the founder of Tata Group, has emerged as the mot charitable man in the world in the last century. Jamsetji Tata has been named as the biggest philanthropist of the world as he has donated USD 102.4 billion (Rs 829734 crore).

The second place is occupied by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his now-estranged wife Melinda, who have donated USD 74.6 billion. Legend investor Warren Buffet is at third place with USD 37.4 billion, followed by George Soros (USD 34.8 billion) and John D Rockefeller (USD 26.8 billion) respectively. The list was released in 2021.

 

Quote

 

Your points just skip over established facts, and fill in facts with biases and propaganda. 

 

Are you saying that the famines inflicted by highly incompetent and callous British administrators who ruled India for a century are just biases and propaganda ! There are tons of documented material and photographs in this regard.

Sir Richard Temple, one of the very few British administrators who provided famine relief and helped reduce famine casualties in the 1874 famine, was criticized by many British officials for spending too much on famine relief. 

 

Quote

Global poverty rates, especially in third world countries, has been falling for a while now. This is due to globalisation, increased healthcare quality, etc. That's an Indian-specific achievement and linked to increased globalisation. 

Then you can credit globalization with the ascendance of eastern nations into the rich league again after two centuries. 

Western masses have also benefitted from globalization with access to cheaper and affordable medical drugs and medical services in India and other countries.  The expensive healthcare in their own countries however would have bankrupted them or punched a hole in their wallets for the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/yusuf-hamieds-cipla-cancer-drug-2012-6?IR=T

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60569647

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/india-becomes-wests-favourite-destination-for-cheaper-cosmetic-surgery/articleshow/25003281.cms?from=mdr

[bebotalk]

It's well stated that global povery levels have fallen over the past few decades. So this cannot be specific to India, as India isn't the world. I thought mandirs taught clear thinking?

[Ajay0]

22 hours ago, bebotalk said:

It's well stated that global povery levels have fallen over the past few decades. So this cannot be specific to India, as India isn't the world. I thought mandirs taught clear thinking?

The OP is not about fall in global poverty levels, but about brics nations seeing the highest surge in millionaire count over the next few years, exceeding that of the G7 countries.