&w=3840&q=100)
IMF reveals strength of India's economy amid Trump's tariffs
At a recent press conference in the White House, US President Donald Trump was asked why he was singling out India by imposing a 25 per cent 'punishment tariff' when China buys more Russian oil than India. Cornered, Trump mumbled incoherently before moving quickly to the next question.
Is India's relative economic vulnerability the reason why Trump is targeting India and not China? Trump may be making a serious mistake.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India is the world's fifth largest economy and will soon be the fourth largest with a GDP of $4.19 trillion. But that's only part of the story. By purchasing power parity (PPP), IMF data places India as the world's third largest economy with a GDP of $14.59 trillion.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
How can these two sets of figures be reconciled? PPP is increasingly being regarded as a more accurate measure of both GDP and per capita income. The Economist's 'Big Mac index' regularly adjusts per capita income of different countries to take into account living costs. The same theory guides purchasing power parity-based computations.
The IMF explained the logic behind PPP in ranking countries across geographies: 'How fast is the global economy growing? Is China contributing more to global growth than the United States? To answer the questions, one must compare the value of the output from different countries. But each country reports its data in its own currency.
'One of the two main methods of conversion uses market exchange rates—the rate prevailing in the foreign exchange market (using either the rate at the end of the period or an average over the period). The other approach uses the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rate—the rate at which the currency of one country would have to be converted into that of another country to buy the same amount of goods and services in each country.'
Which method is better? Market rates or PPP? According to the IMF, 'International organisations use different approaches. The World Bank uses market-based rates to determine the weights in its regional and global aggregations of real GDP, whereas the IMF and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) use weights based on PPP rates. Each methodology has its advantages and disadvantages.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'PPP exchange rates are relatively stable over time. By contrast, market rates are more volatile, and using them could produce quite large swings in aggregate measures of growth even when growth rates in individual countries are stable. Another drawback of market-based rates is that they are relevant only for internationally traded goods. Nontraded goods and services tend to be cheaper in low-income than in high-income countries. A haircut in New York is more expensive than in Lima; the price of a taxi ride of the same distance is higher in Paris than in Tunis; and a ticket to a cricket game costs more in London than in Lahore.
'Indeed, because wages tend to be lower in poorer countries, and services are often relatively labour intensive, the price of a haircut in Lima is likely to be cheaper than in New York even when the cost of making tradable goods, such as machinery, is the same in both countries. Any analysis that fails to take into account these differences in the prices of nontraded goods across countries will underestimate the purchasing power of consumers in emerging market and developing countries and, consequently, their overall welfare. For this reason, PPP is generally regarded as a better measure of overall well-being.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India's GDP (PPP) was $14.59 trillion in 2024-25 as per IMF. China leads the table with a GDP (PPP) of $35.29 trillion, followed in second place by the United States with a GDP (PPP) of $28.78 trillion. Japan ($6.72 trillion) and Germany ($5.69 trillion) make up the world's five largest economies by purchasing power parity.
The GDP gap between the US and India at market rates is 7:1 ($29 trillion vs $4.19 trillion). But by PPP, the GDP gap falls to 2:1 ($28.78 trillion vs $14.59 trillion)
At the relative growth rates of the two countries' economies, how soon will the GDP (PPP) gap between the US and India close? India's average annual economic growth is projected at between 6 and 8 per cent. A reasonable annual average growth rate over the next 15 years is 7 per cent.
The annual average growth rate of the US economy is meanwhile projected at 2 per cent in line with its average growth rate over the past 15 years.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Thus, India's GDP (PPP), growing at 7 per cent per year, would double every 10 years and quadruple in 20 years. Using the current IMF GDP base of $14.59 trillion, India's GDP (PPP) would be around $58 trillion in 2045.
How about the US economy? Again, using the current IMF GDP base of $28.78 trillion, US GDP (PPP), growing at an average of 2 per cent per year, would be around $42 trillion in 2045 against India's $56 trillion in the same year. Clearly the point where Indian GDP (PPP) overtakes US GDP (PPP) will lie at some point between 2035 and 2045, possibly around 2040. Fifteen years from now is a blink in the eye in historical terms.
What about per capita income? According to the IMF's World Economic Outlook published in October 2024, India's per capita income (PPP) is $11,940. This compares to India's per capita income at market rates of around $3,000. The per capita income of the US (PPP), again according to the IMF, is $89,105.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
At current growth rates and with the population of both India and the US projected to rise by around 8-10 per cent over the next 20 years, Indian per capita income (PPP) of $11,940, growing at 7 per cent a year, could quadruple to $48,000 in 2045. US per capita income (PPP) would over the same 20 years, growing at 2 per cent a year, rise to $1,30,000 in 2045.
Thus, the US in 20 years will still be thrice as wealthy as India in 2045 (compared to eight times as wealthy by PPP in 2025) but India's economy (PPP) will be larger than America's.
As India negotiates tariffs with the US, both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be aware that the decisive shift in global economic power these numbers demonstrate is well under way.
The writer is an editor, author and publisher. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Emma Thompson reveals how Trump ‘stalked' her, asked for date after her divorce; 'I'd love you to come and stay at…'
Hollywood actress Emma Thompson, who is widely known for her roles in Love Actually and the Harry Potter movie series, claimed that Donald made a phone call to her after 'stalking' her trailer to obtain her number. Emma Thompson further disclosed how Trump got her contact details and why he chose to get in touch. She went on to suggest that Trump wanted to take an advantage of a divorcee.(AP) The revelation comes as the celebrated actress attended the world premiere of her film, The Dead of Winter, and received the Leopard Club Award at the 78th annual Locarno Film Festival in Switzerland. On Saturday, she took part in a discussion called 'Conversation with Emma Thompson' as part of the festival's schedule. While reflecting on her career path during this Q&A session, Emma shared a humorous story about Trump when she was working on Mike Nichols' 1998 film Primary Colors. Also Read: Did Trump's White House delete sections on foreign gifts, due process from Congress' Constitution site? Trump called Emma Thompson; 'Maybe we could have dinner' 'I was in my trailer one day while we were making that movie, and the phone rang, and it was Donald Trump,' Emma told the Hollywood Reporter. 'I didn't know the number of the phone. No one had rung me on it before, and I said, 'Hello.' 'Hi, this is Donald Trump here,' and I thought it was a joke. And then I said, 'How can I help you? ,' thinking maybe he needed directions.' Trump's response, according to the Sense and Sensibility star, was, 'I'd love you to come and stay at one of my beautiful places. Maybe we could have dinner.' 'Well, that's very sweet. Thank you so much. I'll get back to you,' she told Trump as per the Mirror US. Emma further disclosed how Trump got her contact details and why he chose to get in touch. She went on to suggest that Trump wanted to take an advantage of a divorcee. 'I realised that on that day, my divorce decree had come through. And I bet he's got people looking for suitable people he could take out on his arm. You know, a nice divorcee, that's what he was looking for.' She went to mention that Trump found her number in a trailer, saying 'that's stalking.' Emma Thompson mocks Trump Poking fun at Trump, she guessed what would have happened if she had agreed to his offer, saying, 'I could have gone on a date with Donald Trump, and then I would have a story to tell. I could have changed the course of American history.' Emma Thompson and actor Kenneth Branagh finalized their divorce following their 1989–1995 marriage. In 2003, she wed Greg Wise. At that time, Trump divorced his second wife, Marla Maples, and wed Melania Trump in 2005.


Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump has said abortion is a state issue. His judicial picks could shape it nationally for decades
One called abortion a 'barbaric practice.' Another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. Several have played prominent roles in defending their state's abortion restrictions in court nd in cases that have had national impact, including on access to medication abortion. As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions. Trump has offered shifting positions on the issue while indicating he wants to leave questions of abortion access to the states. But his court nominees will have lifetime appointments and be in position to roll back abortion access long after the Republican president leaves the White House. Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial nominations 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.' 'It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she said. Of the 17 judicial nominees so far in Trump's second term, at least eight have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanded abortion access. No such records could be found for the other nine, nor did the AP review find evidence that any of Trump's judicial nominees support increased access to abortion. 'Every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the US Supreme Court's landmark ruling,' a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement that referenced the 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. 'The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion.' Trump's first term also had an enduring impact on the courts, appointing 234 judges. By the end of that term, more than one-quarter of active federal judges were nominated by Trump, including three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. In his second term, all but five of his 17 nominees are from states that went for Trump in 2024 and where Republicans have pushed severe abortion restrictions. Among them, four nominees are from Missouri and five are from Florida. Here is a look at the nominees who have tried to reduce abortion access or have advocated for restrictions. They did not respond to requests for comment: Whitney Hermandorfer, who has been confirmed to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, has built much of her relatively short career as a lawyer around challenging former President Joe Biden's policies related to abortion and transgender rights. She challenged a federal law requiring employers to provide workers with reasonable accommodations to get abortion care, as well as Title X regulations that required providers who receive funding through the program to give information about abortions to patients if asked. Hermandorfer defended Tennessee's abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, in court and tried to dismiss a lawsuit from doctors seeking clarification on exemptions to the ban. She said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.' Maria Lanahan, a district court nominee in Missouri, helped write the state's complaint in a lawsuit that had sweeping national implications for access to medication abortion. The case challenged the FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone despite decades of evidence showing the drug is safe and effective. The lawyer supported Missouri's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funding and defended the state's abortion ban after a group of clergy sued, arguing it violated the state constitution's protections for religious freedom. Jordan Pratt, a nominee for the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, called abortion a 'barbaric practice' and 'one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable' in an amicus brief supporting Florida's 15-week abortion ban. The state now bans the procedure at six weeks. In 2025, Pratt struck down a Florida law that created a judicial waiver program for minors seeking to have abortions without parental consent. The lawyer also worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that opposes abortion and has sued to reverse the FDA approval of mifepristone. John Guard, also nominated to fill for the same district, defended Florida's then-15-week abortion ban in court as the state's chief deputy attorney general. Joshua Divine, a deputy solicitor general of Missouri who is nominated to be a district judge in the state, is currently representing Missouri in a case challenging the FDA approval of mifepristone. Divine co-authored the lawsuit, which includes misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb.' In his college newspaper, Divine described himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement, referred to abortion as 'the killing of an innocent, genetically unique human being' and argued that life begins at fertilization. He also stepped into a prominent role in the fight over abortion rights in the state after Missouri voters approved an abortion rights amendment in 2024. That amendment did not immediately override state laws. It left it up to abortion rights groups to ask courts to knock down abortion restrictions they believed were now unconstitutional. During the ensuing legal battles, Divine represented the state in defending a host of abortion restrictions. Chad Meredith, Trump's nominee to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, defended the state's abortion ban and other restrictions while he was the state's chief deputy general counsel. That included a law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and describe images to abortion patients. Bill Mercer, a Republican state lawmaker in Montana who is nominated for a US District Court judgeship in the state, has repeatedly supported anti-abortion bills. Those include ones that sought to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; require a 24-hour waiting period and mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients; require parental notification for minors to get an abortion; prohibit the use of state funding for abortions; prohibit certain insurance policies from covering abortions; and restrict what types of medical professionals can dispense medication abortion. Jennifer Mascott, a lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office and a Trump nominee to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, has spoken repeatedly about abortion law in panels and interviews. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Mascott in an interview on 'Fox News Live' disagreed with the argument that the decision undermined the court's legitimacy. She said abortion issues are 'more appropriately decided' by the states, elected officials in Congress and people in their local communities. Anti-abortion groups are optimistic based on Trump's early nominees Anti-abortion groups said it is premature to make broad conclusions about whether the nominees would help carry out their policy goals but that they were optimistic based on the names they have seen so far. 'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America. Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for Students for Life, said she was hopeful the administration will continue nominating those 'who will respect the rule of law.'Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time. Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, said the courts, until now, have largely been an effective option for advocates to challenge state abortion bans and restrictions. 'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion — saying he's going to leave it to the states while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,' she said.


Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump praised a Sydney Sweeney ad, and American Eagle's stock soared
On Monday, American Eagle's stock rose by more than 23% after President Donald Trump complimented the company's controversial advertisement featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, upon learning that she shared his political affiliation. When speaking with reporters Monday morning, Trump was asked what he thought about the backlash to her ad campaign and then was told that Sweeney is a registered Republican. 'Now I love her ad,' he said. He added, 'You'd be surprised at how many people are Republicans.' Then, on social media, he posted that the ad was 'the 'HOTTEST' ad out there.' He said that American Eagle's jeans were 'flying off the shelves' and then said, 'Go get 'em, Sydney!' Public voting records in Florida confirm that Sweeney registered as a Republican on June 14, 2024, but the actress has not commented publicly on political issues nor has she publicly endorsed Trump. Representatives for Sweeney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the issue. The show of support from the president probably contributed to the surge in American Eagle's stock, Rich Smith, a stock market analyst at financial services company Motley Fool, wrote in a post Monday. But such an endorsement could end up being a 'double-edged sword' for the company, he wrote, because it could 'alienate' segments of consumers. The stock lost some of the gains Tuesday, with a 2% decline at the opening bell and further declines after the start of trading, but Monday's bump was an example of Trump's influence on the market and on the financial condition of businesses. The company has been struggling — its sales declined in the first quarter of the year — and the ad campaign was an attempt to reverse its downward trajectory. With his comment and post, Trump seemed to provide a boost to that effort. The ad in question, which was released in July, shows the popular actress clad in American Eagle denim while she talks about genetic traits. The camera then zooms into her blue eyes as she says, 'My jeans are blue.' When the ad first appeared online, American Eagle's stocks rallied in a bout of meme-stock mania. That initial bump to the company's stock price was short-lived. The ad — along with its accompanying tagline, 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' — was criticized on social media for seemingly celebrating eugenics and white beauty standards, and the stock tumbled. The ad also set off debates about whether the company deliberately courted controversy as a marketing strategy and about the ever-shifting standards of political correctness. On Friday, days after the ad was released, American Eagle posted a statement on Instagram declaring the campaign 'is and always was about the jeans.' It did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Trump's endorsement or the company's recent stock performance.