Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Reselects420 t1_je1xey8 wrote

Reply to comment by Throwaway08080909070 in India’s overall exports crosses an all time high of $750 billion by Falls_stuff

GDP per capita is the main metric used to label a country “developing”. If you decide to ignore the most key metric, you’re choosing to be a moron.

62

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je1xlxp wrote

I'm choosing to look at something other than India's astonishing capacity to produce new humans, such as their membership in a small club as a nuclear power with a space program, and VAST exports.

I'm also choosing not to insult you despite your need to descend to that level.

−37

Reselects420 t1_je1yimn wrote

You can’t just make up your own metric of judging whether a country is developed or developing, and decide that everyone should update their dictionary.

Pakistan is a nuclear power with a GDP per capita only a little lower than India’s. Is Pakistan a developed country?

Here, I’ll do one better. Iran. Higher GDP per capita than India, space program, possibly nuclear status soon. Are they a developed country? If not, is it just the figure of exports that matters, not the distribution of that figure?

49

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je1yruy wrote

> Pakistan is a nuclear power with a GDP per capita only a little lower than India’s. Is Pakistan a developed country?

But they lack a space program and nearly a trillion in exports. And again "per capita" vs "total" is worth acknowledging, even if you reject its role in defining development.

> Here, I’ll do one better. Iran. Higher GDP per capita than India, space program, possibly nuclear status soon. Are they a developed country? If not, is it just the figure of exports that matters, not the distribution of that figure?

It's the combination of factors, as I've said from the start.

−6

meabandit t1_je30b8n wrote

Your definition might work for you but we can't all come ask you when we need to know right? So maybe let's use a common definition, mkay?

27