We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
For me, the most shocking stat is this -- the per capita GSP drops from the current USD 2400 (around Bangladesh level) to USD 1,900 (around sub-Saharan African level) if you hit the top 1%. And I guess if you exclude the top 5% we will probably rank close to last in the world???!!! So I blame Nirmala Sitharaman for the recent drop. Her taxes on short-term capital gains and refusal to give IT slab relief have reduced consumption by the top 1 to 5%, who are the engine of the economy.
GDP is a flow measure for the total value of goods and services produced within a country over a specific period—how much the economy is producing within that time frame.
Wealth (or net worth) is a stock measure, which represents the total value of assets owned by individuals or entities at a specific point in time.
Even if the wealth of the top 1% were removed, this wouldn’t automatically decrease GDP, because the wealth itself is not being actively spent or generated in the economy on a day-to-day basis—it's an accumulation of past resources.
The wealthiest Indians may have significant assets, but these assets don't directly equate to the economic output measured by GDP. You are drawing an equal betweem wealth and economic output, which is fundamentally incorrect. India's GDP would still stand at 3.5 trillion dollars even if Adani were to personally go bankrupt (Adani himself, not his group of companies since they have a contribution to the GDP).
For the love of God, please read up more on economic and financial concepts. You all are/going to be corp lawyers lol.