I think they're beyond caring at this stage. They've seen India oil laundering for Russia and they don't give a shit anymore. They've written relations off as a lost cause.
India says BBC documentary on India PM Modi is "propaganda"
- Thread starter D68
- Start date
- Status
But that won't prevent the west from importing Russian oil thru 3rd party sources. People call it hypocrisy . I say it's typical British semantics which deliberately won't tell the difference between grooming & rape , a corsair & a pirate , an escort & a prostitute , etc.
Last heard , ever since the price cap on Russian oil fizzled out faster than you can break wind out here particularly after Russia retaliated by banning exports to those subscribing to the ban , the west's now contemplating a price cap on petroleum products like refined oil .
Trust you know what that means . Less Russian oil in the market more the price of oil. Trust you also know what Paddyfication of the west means don't you , Paddy , especially since Irish Joe is sitting on tons of oil & gas & exporting them to Europe at a premium . Yup. No discounts even to minions like the UK . But you already know that .
As I've already mentioned (several times), the only way to stop the US (or any other Western nation's) private companies from buying Indian petroleum products is to sanction Indian petroleum exports. This hasn't happened yet, but it's an inevitable part of future escalation. They said Western tanks wouldn't be sent, now they are, so the sanctions on Indian Petroleum exports will eventually come too.
Further examination shows that you are the idiot. You presented a table showing 1059m in 2000. Then you link an article reading:
'I gave birth to India's billionth baby'
In May 2000, India's billionth citizen was born. The baby's mother, Anjana Arora, spoke to Witness about the day .www.bbc.com
Then you link a graph that says 1059.6m at the side.
View attachment 26155
So the variation in the count even shows a margin of 16.4% measured against the predicted rise of 363m from 1976 date of the study, when the population was 637m according to this source.
India Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of India population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.www.macrotrends.net
So who's to say the original count didn't also have a variation of 17%? Referring to the same source above, it too was off by 14.5m for 1970. Maybe enough mistakes were made to cancel each other out in this one case. For all the rest of the countries quoted the prediction is off by a double digit percentage based on the predicted increase.
The other figures are not off by only a few percent. For Indonesia the initial figure of 119m was even off by 4m. The predicted rise was also 119m, the actual rise was 99m. That's 20% difference in projected increase vs actual.
Indonesia Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of Indonesia population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
For Japan they predicted a rise of 29m, the actual rise was 21m. So they were wrong by only 40 f#cking percent last time eh.
Japan Population Growth Rate 1950-2024
Chart and table of Japan population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
Dude, give up at maths and stick to licking your elbow.
Are you seriously an idiot... It clearly says May 2000, whereas the Google figure is for the entire year of 2000. India's FY ends in March 2001. That's 10 months of additional births to get to 1059 million.
It still doesn't matter, the accuracy is extremely high.
For a 30-year study, it's extremly accurate.
And then more and more stupidity... Japan and Indonesia, the Japanese screwed up their demographics due to their change in economy. I have already explained that. Indonesia is Indonesia. The UN can't predict stupid, nobody can. Just like how I couldn't predict your stupidity during the course of this discussion.
Japan, China, the West have all screwed up demographics. One due to loss of economic freedom, the other due to the CCP and the last due to feminism. You can't easily predict these changes. Also, there's no need to be accurate, only the trend is necessary. And the trend for these economies is all bad. Even then, they managed to predict India's accurately simply because we didn't screw up. There's really nothing complex about it.
Population changes are determined by TFR. In Japan, men don't want relationships because they can't afford one. In China, the women have become insecure because they don't believe their men can deal with the massive threat, enough to keep their children safe, insecure women avoid getting pregnant. In the West, women don't need no man anymore, so the men are leaving them alone, even though the women are safe and the men can afford families. There are dumbasses like Biden telling their women they should have kids after they are old women. All three are very different situations and this screws up the TFR calculations. None of these have historical precedence. There's no way to tell how the pendulum will swing, except that the forecast is bad. Otoh, India's TFR is easily estimated because the change is gradual and predictable, like it used to be the case before the 2000s for pretty much all countries, even China. There is historical precedence for India, and has been the same for the last 2000 years, which makes it easy.
For India:
1970
UN: 543m
Actual: 557m
Difference = 14m
1980
UN: 694m
Actual: 697m
Difference = 3m
1990
UN: 893m
Actual: 870m
Difference = 23m
2000:
UN: 1059m
Actual: 1059m
Difference = 0m
The difference for each decade is literally nothing for the size of the population. 2.5% for 1970, 0.45% for 1980, 2.65% for 1990 and 0% for 2000. That's mind-numbingly accurate for a 3 decade prediction. Which also means the prediction for the next 3 decades will also be pretty accurate. For all other major countries, the population will actually be lesser than they can predict because the TFR is extremely unstable.
If you still don't get it, then I can't really help you beyond this point. There's no cure for stupidity.
Nice try. According to your source, Indian population was already over 1bn in 1997, call it March 1998 of whatever you like, but you are still wrong.
India Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of India population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
Nope, its predicted rises are off by tens of %, and the source you're using to validate the prediction for India disagrees with their start value by an amount equal to ~4% of thee predicted increase, and there is disagreement with a 3rd source even then, making the whole thing pixie dust.It still doesn't matter, the accuracy is extremely high.
For a 30-year study, it's extremly accurate.
So there were factors that their prediction failed to address? Now you're just helping to prove my point.
So, having failed in this argument, you now resort to insulting every example country that proves you wrong. If I was in Indonesia during that time, their population would be even higher still.
Bad news kiddo, the prediction for Brazil's 1970-2000 increase of 118m is off by 39m, so wow, that's not far off 40% too (~34%). I think they should just use tea leaves in future.
Brazil Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of Brazil population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
www.macrotrends.net
Their start value isn't even correct for China. They missed by a whole 50m!
China Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of China population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
www.macrotrends.net
Quit your excuses. I sentence you to death for wasting my time you social sciences fruitcake.
Nice try. According to your source, Indian population was already over 1bn in 1997, call it March 1998 of whatever you like, but you are still wrong.
India Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of India population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
View attachment 26162
Nope, its predicted rises are off by tens of %, and the source you're using to validate the prediction for India disagrees with their start value by an amount equal to ~4% of thee predicted increase, and there is disagreement with a 3rd source even then, making the whole thing pixie dust.
So there were factors that their prediction failed to address? Now you're just helping to prove my point.
So, having failed in this argument, you now resort to insulting every example country that proves you wrong. If I was in Indonesia during that time, their population would be even higher still.
Bad news kiddo, the prediction for Brazil's 1970-2000 increase of 118m is off by 39m, so wow, that's not far off 40% too (~34%). I think they should just use tea leaves in future.
Brazil Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of Brazil population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
Their start value isn't even correct for China. They missed by a whole 50m!
China Population 1950-2024
Chart and table of China population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.
Quit your excuses. I sentence you to death for wasting my time you social sciences fruitcake.
No clue about your graph, I posted the link to the UN study from 1976 already. You should read that. They predicted a billion in 2000, we got to a billion in 2000.
Brazil is the same as the other countries, bad data, economic and political turmoil. Can't predict those properly.
But their start value was off, and there is differing data on India population too - I found at least 3 different sources that disagree.
You can't just make excuses for every single prediction they made that turns out to be bollox.
Today we learn some glorious truths about the British Pimpire aka the British Empire also known as the Raj.And?
Rotherham grooming gang: seven men guilty of sexual offences
Group targeted five vulnerable teenage girls, using drugs and alcohol to abuse themwww.theguardian.com
They were such benevolent souls , they were. They crossed 7 seas over thousands of miles just to prevent us barbarians burn every women of ours also known as Suttee , to prevent everyone of us from throwing ourselves under the temple chariots also known as the Juggernaut from Jaganath of Puri & to prevent us from marrying of our children among innumerable other social evils they prevented us from indulging in & for which we must remain eternally grateful to them .
For that they travelled all those thousands of miles just like the Spanish conquistadors who went to South America to prevent Aztecs from savage invasions of the surrounding tribes & equally to prevent human sacrifices they indulged in the thousands . All the silver they got from there just like the equivalent of 45 trillion USD the Britcunts took from us was incidental sort of a by-product of the actual process which was , you said it , to prevent social evils.
Let's examine the other great evils they rescued us from -
A View North Cromwell’s legacy of Irish slavery
By Jack Holland On a day in late October 1657, six Irishmen were tried before a British court and condemned to death. Nothing unusual in that, you might remark, given the period.
group.irishecho.com
Another glorious example of the British Pimpire , the 1943 man made Bengal Famine - the last of the famines , major or minor courtesy the Pimpire in India duly engineered by the British administration in India of the Pimpire & his majesty's pimps in London headed by the future invalid who died in his own waste , much like the hapless victims of the famine the future invalid helped engineer.
What a load of absolute crooked horseshit.
If the UK overstocked itself for post-war profit, then explain why they were on food rations for a long time after the war had ended.
And still no answer to why India is exporting food stuffs while thousands die everyday from malnutrition and hunger in India. You would have thought that their new oil laundering money would have at least bought them a solution to that problem. Not to mention the money they're making smuggling western electronic into Russia.
If the UK overstocked itself for post-war profit, then explain why they were on food rations for a long time after the war had ended.
And still no answer to why India is exporting food stuffs while thousands die everyday from malnutrition and hunger in India. You would have thought that their new oil laundering money would have at least bought them a solution to that problem. Not to mention the money they're making smuggling western electronic into Russia.
Last edited:
- Status