.
Pak economy far better than India: Ishrat
By Mushfiq Ahmad
KARACHI: Chairman National Commission for Government Reforms Dr Ishrat Hussain has said the performance of Pakistan’s economy is far better than India if compared in relative terms instead of absolute terms. Speaking at a luncheon meeting with the members of American Business Council on Monday, he said Pakistan’s exports were larger than India’s if difference of their size and population is considered. “If our export today stands at $18 billion, theirs should be at $144 billion. But they are standing at $95 billion,” he said.
Similarly, he said, Pakistan had been more successful than India in attracting foreign direct investment. “As we are likely to have received $5 billion as FDI by the end of this fiscal, India should attract $40 billion, but its FDI stands only at $12-15 billion,” he said. Hussain said it was easier in the first three years of Musharraf government to get things done because there was no elected government. “We took many decisions in that period and implemented them very easily through ordinances,” he said. “Now the situation is quite different. It looks like a one-man dictatorship from outside, but the fact is that everything is discussed in cabinet committee and the cabinet. It also goes through standing committees of parliament and is debated on the floors of Senate and National Assembly, which takes a lot of time. However, we have to respect the authority of the elected representatives.”
He said the ultimate aim of the NCGR is to make the lives of ordinary citizens easier by ensuring better education, health and other services to them through reforms at the government level. The former governor of SBP said there are too many ministries and then these ministries have different departments. “In Islamabad officers keep holding meetings all the time to coordinate their matters, but that coordination is difficult to achieve. There is too much fussiness today; we need clarity,” he said. “We have decided the areas of education to be overseen by different levels of government. Higher education is to be overseen by federal government, college level education by provincial governments and primary level education by district level governments,” he said.
He said that there was need to replicate the experience of petroleum ministry in the other ministries. He said petroleum ministry had given autonomy to public sector corporations like OGDC and SSGC and had formed OCAC to decide prices. It is now concerned only with policy-making and in projects like IPI gas pipeline, he said. He said the government’s only job should be to plan, make policies, implement and monitor their respective areas. It should not be involved in running enterprises, he said. The chairman NCGR said there were some commercial services being run by officers who were unable to compete because of government restrictions. He said there was no need to retain the civil servants’ groups of commerce and trade, postal service and railway.
He said officers should be paid according to market conditions and their performance instead of grades. “These things may have worked in 1950s, but you cannot solve today’s problems with instruments of the past,” he said. He advised the ABC members to form a group, which should identify problems companies face in dealing with ministries and make recommendations for his commission. President ABC Iqbal Bengali said the ABC members wanted the government to ensure protection for intellectual property rights, patents, and trademarks and eliminate counterfeits. He said the government must also work towards ensuring data exclusivity. He stressed level playing field for market players and said for this the government must eliminate smuggling. He said the ABC members advocate access to information and expect transparency in the government decisions.
link http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=51563
.
thank God someone with guts and credibility has stood up and spoken the truth, otherwise pakistanis, including our own board members, will forever and ever repeat the mantra of a dictatorship under musharraf. kudos to dr. ishrat hussain, a highly respectable economist and i would say the most influential SBP governor ever, to stand up and say this. 
yawn
QUOTE(wiseking @ Apr 16 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]891170[/snapback]
thank God someone with guts and credibility has stood up and spoken the truth, otherwise pakistanis, including our own board members, will forever and ever repeat the mantra of a dictatorship under musharraf. kudos to dr. ishrat hussain, a highly respectable economist and i would say the most influential SBP governor ever, to stand up and say this.
Good for Pakistan if the numbers quoted are correct.
This is what i has been saying that we are economically better then India (not by huge margin). India have 7 times more population then Pakistan so both things should be taken into consideration.
ofcuz, any economist wud knw that if compared in relative terms, Pakistani economy is doing far better than india. indians boast about their GDP, but keeping in mind they have a population of a billion, its not a big deal if they have a high GDP.
QUOTE(Skull-Buster @ Apr 17 2007, 06:28 AM) [snapback]891296[/snapback]
ofcuz, any economist wud knw that if compared in relative terms, Pakistani economy is doing far better than india. indians boast about their GDP, but keeping in mind they have a population of a billion, its not a big deal if they have a high GDP.
indeed, alot of indians do boast abnout there "gdp" but they seem to froget there population is almost ten times bigger then pakistan, heck, just the state of uttar pradesh alone has larger population then ALL of Pakistan!!!
I absolutely hate it when people start comparing pakistan to india. India is the gutterhole of the world, doing better than the gutter hole does not exactly mean much.
Aoa
It is a good thing. [and not that I'm saying that there is anythign wrong with what is being done]
however, I think India is there and the resourses, military and otherwise, it would use to fight us wouldn't be relative to our size in comparison ot them. We should keep the real figures in mind as that is what we are up against... It would be better...
w/salaam
It is a good thing. [and not that I'm saying that there is anythign wrong with what is being done]
however, I think India is there and the resourses, military and otherwise, it would use to fight us wouldn't be relative to our size in comparison ot them. We should keep the real figures in mind as that is what we are up against... It would be better...
w/salaam
QUOTE(noxiouspython @ Apr 17 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]891489[/snapback]
Aoa
It is a good thing. [and not that I'm saying that there is anythign wrong with what is being done]
however, I think India is there and the resourses, military and otherwise, it would use to fight us wouldn't be relative to our size in comparison ot them. We should keep the real figures in mind as that is what we are up against... It would be better...
w/salaam
I agree with.
interesting article.... but about indians going on about GDP, i want to add that PCI (PPP) of India is higher than that of Pakistan.
that said there are many different ways of assesing an economy, so i wonder what methods he has used- which would not scale with PCI.
that said there are many different ways of assesing an economy, so i wonder what methods he has used- which would not scale with PCI.
QUOTE(fingolfin361 @ Apr 17 2007, 09:32 PM) [snapback]891509[/snapback]
interesting article.... but about indians going on about GDP, i want to add that PCI (PPP) of India is higher than that of Pakistan.
that said there are many different ways of assesing an economy, so i wonder what methods he has used- which would not scale with PCI.
Its simple since India have population 7 times bigger then Pakistan so in relative terms Pak economy is better. If Pakistan budget is $25 billion then India should have $175 billion instead of $152 billion which mean on per person basis Pakistan spend more on its people then India. Still not huge difference and big populations has his advantages like bigger GDP which mean more money to spend on Armed Forces.
QUOTE(khiladi4you @ Apr 18 2007, 03:45 AM) [snapback]891513[/snapback]
Its simple since India have population 7 times bigger then Pakistan so in relative terms Pak economy is better. If Pakistan budget is $25 billion then India should have $175 billion instead of $152 billion which mean on per person basis Pakistan spend more on its people then India. Still not huge difference and big populations has his advantages like bigger GDP which mean more money to spend on Armed Forces.
yes ur right. thats y the GDP of india is much higher than Pakistan but if u look at GDP per capita there is not much difference.
However, none of the above are true indicators of development. infact devepoment, progress and human well being cannot be evaluated by economic indicators. simply because they dont take into account the distribution of income. for example a country may have a very high GDP and hence GDP per capita will also be high, but it is possible that the majority of the people are poor and a small portion of the people earn huge amounts. thats exactly the case with india, u have the TATAs, Birlas, Ambanis, Mittals, all are really wealthy families but then there are 400 million poor and hundreds of millions of lower middle class, who are low income earning.
QUOTE(Skull-Buster @ Apr 17 2007, 10:39 PM) [snapback]891555[/snapback]
yes ur right. thats y the GDP of india is much higher than Pakistan but if u look at GDP per capita there is not much difference.
However, none of the above are true indicators of development. infact devepoment, progress and human well being cannot be evaluated by economic indicators. simply because they dont take into account the distribution of income. for example a country may have a very high GDP and hence GDP per capita will also be high, but it is possible that the majority of the people are poor and a small portion of the people earn huge amounts. thats exactly the case with india, u have the TATAs, Birlas, Ambanis, Mittals, all are really wealthy families but then there are 400 million poor and hundreds of millions of lower middle class, who are low income earning.
Well Pakistan have higher per capita income by $100, not huge difference but still a difference. But this doesn't mean much because both will remain 3rd world countries in coming decades.
QUOTE(khiladi4you @ Apr 17 2007, 02:54 PM) [snapback]891561[/snapback]
Well Pakistan have higher per capita income by $100, not huge difference but still a difference. But this doesn't mean much because both will remain 3rd world countries in coming decades.
India's GDP per capita is higher than Pakistan by 1000 dollars.
QUOTE(thinker @ Apr 17 2007, 05:39 PM) [snapback]891585[/snapback]
India's GDP per capita is higher than Pakistan by 1000 dollars.
GDP is not the same as per capita income.(GNI)
QUOTE(thinker @ Apr 17 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]891585[/snapback]
India's GDP per capita is higher than Pakistan by 1000 dollars.
India have GDP per capita of around $700.
QUOTE(dargay @ Apr 17 2007, 06:20 AM) [snapback]891209[/snapback]
yawn
Bro you could've been a bit more constructive there.
Im not sure on what the figures are for nominal PCI, but India's PCI at PPP (which is a better indication, as it negates the influence of exchange rates) is about a $1000 more than Pakistan's.
Khiladi, PCI is a comparitive measure which takes into account population size, so your reply to my earlier post doesnt explain anything.
I still dont understand what measures Mr. Ahmad has used. I'm sure his figures are accurate according to the measures and weightages he has used, but i cannot comment on their accuracy until i understand them properly.
Also, I wanted to ask people here, how strong is the middle class in Pakistan? My impression is that the Rich-poor divide is very large. Like peole with tons of ancestral wealth and people in the Army and other government related professions are usually the most well off. Is this true? Most Pakistani kids in colleges here that I have met come from very rich families or their parents are Diplomats of some capacity. In contrast a much larger proportion of Indians i have met here (such as myself) come from more modest families. So that is my basis for comparison. Would like to hear members' thoughts on this.
Khiladi, PCI is a comparitive measure which takes into account population size, so your reply to my earlier post doesnt explain anything.
I still dont understand what measures Mr. Ahmad has used. I'm sure his figures are accurate according to the measures and weightages he has used, but i cannot comment on their accuracy until i understand them properly.
Also, I wanted to ask people here, how strong is the middle class in Pakistan? My impression is that the Rich-poor divide is very large. Like peole with tons of ancestral wealth and people in the Army and other government related professions are usually the most well off. Is this true? Most Pakistani kids in colleges here that I have met come from very rich families or their parents are Diplomats of some capacity. In contrast a much larger proportion of Indians i have met here (such as myself) come from more modest families. So that is my basis for comparison. Would like to hear members' thoughts on this.
In terms of population vs economy India is behind Pakistan and it may need lot more time. But economy growith rate of is India around 8.5-7.5% aganist Pakistans 7.5-7%. As a huge economy the 8.5-7.5% growth will show much bigger impact just like Chinese that the Pakistan.
The gap between India and Pakistan will be covered or equalised as the India economy growing much faster & it is in good health. India Export has be crossed $ 100 billion mark and is around this year it is around $ 109 Billion and not $ 95 Billion as stated.
Indian Export bill
The gap between India and Pakistan will be covered or equalised as the India economy growing much faster & it is in good health. India Export has be crossed $ 100 billion mark and is around this year it is around $ 109 Billion and not $ 95 Billion as stated.
Indian Export bill
In terms of population vs economy India is behind Pakistan and it may need lot more time. But economy growith rate of is India around 8.5-7.5% aganist Pakistans 7.5-7%. As a huge economy the 8.5-7.5% growth will show much bigger impact just like Chinese that the Pakistan.
The gap between India and Pakistan will be covered or equalised as the India economy growing much faster & it is in good health. India Export has be crossed $ 100 billion mark and is around this year it is around $ 109 Billion and not $ 95 Billion as stated.
Indian Export bill
The gap between India and Pakistan will be covered or equalised as the India economy growing much faster & it is in good health. India Export has be crossed $ 100 billion mark and is around this year it is around $ 109 Billion and not $ 95 Billion as stated.
Indian Export bill
GDP growth is very subjective. Its not a hard job for a country to jack up its growth figures and face inflation. India I am afraid is gradually falling into that trap. Chinese GDP growth figures are compounded with very low inflation, while India is posting decent growth with alarming inflation rate.
I still Pakistan is behind India in economic depth. There needs to be more demand from within. There are many Indian companies in forbes 500, Pakistan doesnt.
I still Pakistan is behind India in economic depth. There needs to be more demand from within. There are many Indian companies in forbes 500, Pakistan doesnt.
COUNTRY_NAME 2004 2005 RANK
2005
Luxembourg 56380 65630 1
Norway 51810 59590 2
Switzerland 49600 54930 3
Denmark 40750 47390 4
Iceland 37920 46320 5
United States 41440 43740 6
Sweden 35840 41060 7
Ireland 34310 40150 8
Japan 37050 38980 9
United Kingdom 33630 37600 10
Finland 32880 37460 11
Austria 32280 36980 12
High income: OECD 33547 36715 13
Netherlands 32130 36620 14
Belgium 31280 35700 15
High income 32132 35131 16
France 30370 34810 17
Germany 30690 34580 18
Canada 28310 32600 19
Australia 27070 32220 20
European Monetary Union 27921 31914 21
Italy 26280 30010 22
Hong Kong, China 27130 27670 23
Singapore 24740 27490 24
New Zealand 19550 25960 25
Spain 21530 25360 26
Greece 16730 19670 27
Israel 17360 18620 28
High income: nonOECD 16341 17656 29
Slovenia 14820 17350 30
Portugal 14220 16170 31
Korea, Rep. 14040 15830 32
Malta 12100 13590 33
Saudi Arabia 10170 11770 34
Antigua and Barbuda 10130 10920 35
Czech Republic 9170 10710 36
Trinidad and Tobago 9070 10440 37
Hungary 8370 10030 38
Estonia 7080 9100 39
Seychelles 8170 8290 40
St. Kitts and Nevis 7750 8210 41
Croatia 6820 8060 42
Slovak Republic 6480 7950 43
Palau 7120 7630 44
Mexico 6930 7310 45
Poland 6140 7110 46
Lithuania 5840 7050 47
World 6338 6987 48
Latvia 5460 6760 49
Lebanon 6040 6180 50
Chile 4930 5870 51
Upper middle income 4731 5625 52
Libya 4560 5530 53
Mauritius 4640 5260 54
Botswana 4380 5180 55
Gabon 4080 5010 56
Malaysia 4520 4960 57
South Africa 3670 4960 58
Venezuela, RB 4030 4810 59
St. Lucia 4410 4800 60
Turkey 3750 4710 61
Panama 4310 4630 62
Costa Rica 4470 4590 63
Argentina 3580 4470 64
Russian Federation 3410 4460 65
Uruguay 3890 4360 66
Europe & Central Asia 3307 4113 67
Latin America & Caribbean 3584 4008 68
Grenada 3770 3920 69
Romania 2950 3830 70
Dominica 3670 3790 71
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 3400 3590 72
Belize 3460 3500 73
Brazil 3000 3460 74
Bulgaria 2760 3450 75
Jamaica 3300 3400 76
Fiji 2870 3280 77
Serbia and Montenegro 2700 3280 78
Namibia 2380 2990 79
Marshall Islands 2810 2930 80
Kazakhstan 2300 2930 81
Tunisia 2650 2890 82
Macedonia, FYR 2440 2830 83
Iran, Islamic Rep. 2330 2770 84
Belarus 2150 2760 85
Thailand 2490 2750 86
Algeria 2270 2730 87
Middle income 2265 2640 88
Ecuador 2360 2630 89
Peru 2360 2610 90
Albania 2090 2580 91
Suriname 2270 2540 92
Jordan 2260 2500 93
El Salvador 2330 2450 94
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2050 2440 95
Guatemala 2190 2400 96
Maldives 2400 2390 97
Dominican Republic 2110 2370 98
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2300 2300 99
Colombia 2010 2290 100
Swaziland 1700 2280 101
Middle East & North Africa 1995 2241 102
Tonga 1830 2190 103
Samoa 1790 2090 104
Lower middle income 1666 1918 105
Cape Verde 1740 1870 106
Low & middle income 1507 1746 107
China 1500 1740 108
Morocco 1570 1730 109
East Asia & Pacific 1417 1627 110
Vanuatu 1390 1600 111
Ukraine 1270 1520 112
Armenia 1140 1470 113
Kiribati 1210 1390 114
Syrian Arab Republic 1270 1380 115
Georgia 1060 1350 116
Angola 930 1350 117
Philippines 1200 1300 118
Paraguay 1140 1280 119
Indonesia 1130 1280 120
Egypt, Arab Rep. 1250 1250 121
Azerbaijan 930 1240 122
Honduras 1040 1190 123
Sri Lanka 1010 1160 124
Djibouti 960 1020 125
Guyana 1020 1010 126
Bolivia 960 1010 127
Cameroon 890 1010 128
Lesotho 740 960 129
Congo, Rep. 750 950 130
Nicaragua 830 910 131
Moldova 720 880 132
Bhutan 770 870 133
Cote d'Ivoire 760 840 134
Timor-Leste 540 750 135
Sub-Saharan Africa 607 745 136
India 630 720 137
Senegal 600 710 138
Mongolia 600 690 139
Pakistan 600 690 140
South Asia 598 684 141
Papua New Guinea 550 660 142
Comoros 560 640 143
Sudan 520 640 144
Vietnam 540 620 145
Yemen, Rep. 570 600 146
Solomon Islands 570 590 147
Low income 507 580 148
Mauritania 530 560 149
Nigeria 430 560 150
Kenya 480 530 151
Benin 450 510 152
Uzbekistan 450 510 153
Zambia 400 490 154
Bangladesh 440 470 155
Haiti 410 450 156
Ghana 380 450 157
Kyrgyz Republic 400 440 158
Lao PDR 400 440 159
Burkina Faso 350 400 160
Chad 330 400 161
Sao Tome and Principe 390 390 162
Cambodia 350 380 163
Mali 330 380 164
Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) 336 379 165
Least developed countries: UN classification 336 378 166
Guinea 410 370 167
Central African Republic 310 350 168
Togo 310 350 169
Zimbabwe 620 340 170
Tanzania 320 340 171
Tajikistan 280 330 172
Mozambique 270 310 173
Madagascar 290 290 174
Gambia, The 270 290 175
Uganda 250 280 176
Nepal 250 270 177
Niger 210 240 178
Rwanda 210 230 179
Sierra Leone 210 220 180
Eritrea 190 220 181
Guinea-Bissau 160 180 182
Malawi 160 160 183
Ethiopia 130 160 184
Liberia 120 130 185
Congo, Dem. Rep. 110 120 186
Burundi 90 100 187
Afghanistan .. ..
Bahamas, The .. ..
Barbados .. ..
Bermuda .. ..
Equatorial Guinea .. ..
French Polynesia .. ..
Isle of Man .. ..
Macao, China .. ..
Netherlands Antilles .. ..
New Caledonia .. ..
Puerto Rico .. ..
Somalia .. ..
Turkmenistan .. ..
Virgin Islands (U.S.) .. ..
West Bank and Gaza .. ..
Kuwait 24040 ..
United Arab Emirates 23770 ..
Cyprus 16510 ..
Bahrain 14370 ..
Oman 9070 ..
Source: World Bank
If the Pakistanis really wanna compete, then they need to watch their back as Bangladeshis are fast catching up, and are giving them a horrid time. this year Bangladesh will do a figure of 8% growth rate and it will be no surprise to me if they over take Pakistanis in another 5-10 years time.
2005
Luxembourg 56380 65630 1
Norway 51810 59590 2
Switzerland 49600 54930 3
Denmark 40750 47390 4
Iceland 37920 46320 5
United States 41440 43740 6
Sweden 35840 41060 7
Ireland 34310 40150 8
Japan 37050 38980 9
United Kingdom 33630 37600 10
Finland 32880 37460 11
Austria 32280 36980 12
High income: OECD 33547 36715 13
Netherlands 32130 36620 14
Belgium 31280 35700 15
High income 32132 35131 16
France 30370 34810 17
Germany 30690 34580 18
Canada 28310 32600 19
Australia 27070 32220 20
European Monetary Union 27921 31914 21
Italy 26280 30010 22
Hong Kong, China 27130 27670 23
Singapore 24740 27490 24
New Zealand 19550 25960 25
Spain 21530 25360 26
Greece 16730 19670 27
Israel 17360 18620 28
High income: nonOECD 16341 17656 29
Slovenia 14820 17350 30
Portugal 14220 16170 31
Korea, Rep. 14040 15830 32
Malta 12100 13590 33
Saudi Arabia 10170 11770 34
Antigua and Barbuda 10130 10920 35
Czech Republic 9170 10710 36
Trinidad and Tobago 9070 10440 37
Hungary 8370 10030 38
Estonia 7080 9100 39
Seychelles 8170 8290 40
St. Kitts and Nevis 7750 8210 41
Croatia 6820 8060 42
Slovak Republic 6480 7950 43
Palau 7120 7630 44
Mexico 6930 7310 45
Poland 6140 7110 46
Lithuania 5840 7050 47
World 6338 6987 48
Latvia 5460 6760 49
Lebanon 6040 6180 50
Chile 4930 5870 51
Upper middle income 4731 5625 52
Libya 4560 5530 53
Mauritius 4640 5260 54
Botswana 4380 5180 55
Gabon 4080 5010 56
Malaysia 4520 4960 57
South Africa 3670 4960 58
Venezuela, RB 4030 4810 59
St. Lucia 4410 4800 60
Turkey 3750 4710 61
Panama 4310 4630 62
Costa Rica 4470 4590 63
Argentina 3580 4470 64
Russian Federation 3410 4460 65
Uruguay 3890 4360 66
Europe & Central Asia 3307 4113 67
Latin America & Caribbean 3584 4008 68
Grenada 3770 3920 69
Romania 2950 3830 70
Dominica 3670 3790 71
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 3400 3590 72
Belize 3460 3500 73
Brazil 3000 3460 74
Bulgaria 2760 3450 75
Jamaica 3300 3400 76
Fiji 2870 3280 77
Serbia and Montenegro 2700 3280 78
Namibia 2380 2990 79
Marshall Islands 2810 2930 80
Kazakhstan 2300 2930 81
Tunisia 2650 2890 82
Macedonia, FYR 2440 2830 83
Iran, Islamic Rep. 2330 2770 84
Belarus 2150 2760 85
Thailand 2490 2750 86
Algeria 2270 2730 87
Middle income 2265 2640 88
Ecuador 2360 2630 89
Peru 2360 2610 90
Albania 2090 2580 91
Suriname 2270 2540 92
Jordan 2260 2500 93
El Salvador 2330 2450 94
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2050 2440 95
Guatemala 2190 2400 96
Maldives 2400 2390 97
Dominican Republic 2110 2370 98
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 2300 2300 99
Colombia 2010 2290 100
Swaziland 1700 2280 101
Middle East & North Africa 1995 2241 102
Tonga 1830 2190 103
Samoa 1790 2090 104
Lower middle income 1666 1918 105
Cape Verde 1740 1870 106
Low & middle income 1507 1746 107
China 1500 1740 108
Morocco 1570 1730 109
East Asia & Pacific 1417 1627 110
Vanuatu 1390 1600 111
Ukraine 1270 1520 112
Armenia 1140 1470 113
Kiribati 1210 1390 114
Syrian Arab Republic 1270 1380 115
Georgia 1060 1350 116
Angola 930 1350 117
Philippines 1200 1300 118
Paraguay 1140 1280 119
Indonesia 1130 1280 120
Egypt, Arab Rep. 1250 1250 121
Azerbaijan 930 1240 122
Honduras 1040 1190 123
Sri Lanka 1010 1160 124
Djibouti 960 1020 125
Guyana 1020 1010 126
Bolivia 960 1010 127
Cameroon 890 1010 128
Lesotho 740 960 129
Congo, Rep. 750 950 130
Nicaragua 830 910 131
Moldova 720 880 132
Bhutan 770 870 133
Cote d'Ivoire 760 840 134
Timor-Leste 540 750 135
Sub-Saharan Africa 607 745 136
India 630 720 137
Senegal 600 710 138
Mongolia 600 690 139
Pakistan 600 690 140
South Asia 598 684 141
Papua New Guinea 550 660 142
Comoros 560 640 143
Sudan 520 640 144
Vietnam 540 620 145
Yemen, Rep. 570 600 146
Solomon Islands 570 590 147
Low income 507 580 148
Mauritania 530 560 149
Nigeria 430 560 150
Kenya 480 530 151
Benin 450 510 152
Uzbekistan 450 510 153
Zambia 400 490 154
Bangladesh 440 470 155
Haiti 410 450 156
Ghana 380 450 157
Kyrgyz Republic 400 440 158
Lao PDR 400 440 159
Burkina Faso 350 400 160
Chad 330 400 161
Sao Tome and Principe 390 390 162
Cambodia 350 380 163
Mali 330 380 164
Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) 336 379 165
Least developed countries: UN classification 336 378 166
Guinea 410 370 167
Central African Republic 310 350 168
Togo 310 350 169
Zimbabwe 620 340 170
Tanzania 320 340 171
Tajikistan 280 330 172
Mozambique 270 310 173
Madagascar 290 290 174
Gambia, The 270 290 175
Uganda 250 280 176
Nepal 250 270 177
Niger 210 240 178
Rwanda 210 230 179
Sierra Leone 210 220 180
Eritrea 190 220 181
Guinea-Bissau 160 180 182
Malawi 160 160 183
Ethiopia 130 160 184
Liberia 120 130 185
Congo, Dem. Rep. 110 120 186
Burundi 90 100 187
Afghanistan .. ..
Bahamas, The .. ..
Barbados .. ..
Bermuda .. ..
Equatorial Guinea .. ..
French Polynesia .. ..
Isle of Man .. ..
Macao, China .. ..
Netherlands Antilles .. ..
New Caledonia .. ..
Puerto Rico .. ..
Somalia .. ..
Turkmenistan .. ..
Virgin Islands (U.S.) .. ..
West Bank and Gaza .. ..
Kuwait 24040 ..
United Arab Emirates 23770 ..
Cyprus 16510 ..
Bahrain 14370 ..
Oman 9070 ..
Source: World Bank
If the Pakistanis really wanna compete, then they need to watch their back as Bangladeshis are fast catching up, and are giving them a horrid time. this year Bangladesh will do a figure of 8% growth rate and it will be no surprise to me if they over take Pakistanis in another 5-10 years time.
QUOTE(kmc @ Apr 18 2007, 08:08 AM) [snapback]891773[/snapback]
In terms of population vs economy India is behind Pakistan and it may need lot more time. But economy growith rate of is India around 8.5-7.5% aganist Pakistans 7.5-7%. As a huge economy the 8.5-7.5% growth will show much bigger impact just like Chinese that the Pakistan.
The gap between India and Pakistan will be covered or equalised as the India economy growing much faster & it is in good health. India Export has be crossed $ 100 billion mark and is around this year it is around $ 109 Billion and not $ 95 Billion as stated.
Indian Export bill
Pakistan had growth rate of 8.4 in 2005 which was much higher then India and in last year 6.6 which was lower. So if this year India's growth rate of better then Pakistan that doesn't mean this will be the case all the time. And remember in 1998-1999 Pak had lower per capita income then India.
QUOTE(khiladi4you @ Apr 17 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]891610[/snapback]
India have GDP per capita of around $700.
where did u get the figures from?
QUOTE(baltoro @ Apr 17 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]891607[/snapback]
GDP is not the same as per capita income.(GNI)
If GDP per capita is higher in India than Pakistan, then how can india's GNI be lower than Pakistan? Its better to be realistic.
QUOTE(thinker @ Apr 18 2007, 08:46 PM) [snapback]891894[/snapback]
If GDP per capita is higher in India than Pakistan, then how can india's GNI be lower than Pakistan? Its better to be realistic.
it is possible, it depends on the amount of indirect business taxes in each country.
QUOTE(thinker @ Apr 18 2007, 07:46 AM) [snapback]891894[/snapback]
where did u get the figures from?
If GDP per capita is higher in India than Pakistan, then how can india's GNI be lower than Pakistan? Its better to be realistic.
india's GNI is NOT lower than pak's...
India
GNI per capita: US $720 (World Bank, 2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/coun...les/1154019.stm
Pakistan
GNI per capita: US $690 (World Bank, 2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/coun...les/1157960.stm
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 18 2007, 03:07 PM) [snapback]891903[/snapback]
india's GNI is NOT lower than pak's...
India
GNI per capita: US $720 (World Bank, 2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/coun...les/1154019.stm
Pakistan
GNI per capita: US $690 (World Bank, 2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/coun...les/1157960.stm
lol u again.
Pak GDP per capita is $847 and will be even more at the end of this fiscal year in couple of months. QUOTE(khiladi4you @ Apr 18 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]891909[/snapback]
lol u again.
Pak GDP per capita is $847 and will be even more at the end of this fiscal year in couple of months.cant u see simple numbers in the links provided ?
for 2006 GNI, india - $720, pak-$690
lets see for 2006-2007 , next year....
provide a credible proof for $847
can anyone tell me what percentage of indian GDP is comprised by Household Consumption Expenditures?
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 18 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]891941[/snapback]
cant u see simple numbers in the links provided ?
for 2006 GNI, india - $720, pak-$690
lets see for 2006-2007 , next year....
provide a credible proof for $847
I can provide you numbers from IMF which say Pak per capita $950 but these are not official figures just estimates.
Here is the official Pak gov site. Search for 847 in PDF file.
http://www.finance.org.pk/survey/sur_chap_05-06/overview.pdf
here is another link
http://www.southasianmedia.net/profile/pak...tan_economy.cfm
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 18 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]891941[/snapback]
cant u see simple numbers in the links provided ?
for 2006 GNI, india - $720, pak-$690
lets see for 2006-2007 , next year....
provide a credible proof for $847
I can provide you numbers from IMF which say Pak per capita $950 but these are not official figures just estimates.
Here is the official Pak gov site. Search for 847 in PDF file.
http://www.finance.org.pk/survey/sur_chap_05-06/overview.pdf
here is another link
http://www.southasianmedia.net/profile/pak...tan_economy.cfm
QUOTE(khiladi4you @ Apr 18 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]891986[/snapback]
I can provide you numbers from IMF which say Pak per capita $950 but these are not official figures just estimates.
Here is the official Pak gov site. Search for 847 in PDF file.
http://www.finance.org.pk/survey/sur_chap_05-06/overview.pdf
here is another link
http://www.southasianmedia.net/profile/pak...tan_economy.cfm
I can provide you numbers from IMF which say Pak per capita $950 but these are not official figures just estimates.
Here is the official Pak gov site. Search for 847 in PDF file.
http://www.finance.org.pk/survey/sur_chap_05-06/overview.pdf
here is another link
http://www.southasianmedia.net/profile/pak...tan_economy.cfm
I asked for a credible link.... from World Bank/IMF/ or CIA likewise....
Not from Pak's official websites
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 19 2007, 04:42 PM) [snapback]892144[/snapback]
I asked for a credible link.... from World Bank/IMF/ or CIA likewise....
Not from Pak's official websites
same applies to u. Giving us bbc link doesnt make sense does it... so how abt other links. BTW what make u thing pakistani government sources are not credible. IMF, WORLD BANK also relies on these very sources to compile their stats. They dont have structure in place to go and work out GDP of each and every country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting thing to notice of ADB website
South Asia
South Asia consists of:
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
http://www.adb.org/SouthAsia/default.asp
Central and West Asia:
Afghanistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
http://www.adb.org/CentralWestAsia/default.asp
Just none economic related issue. Well isnt this a slap inthe face for those who believe pakistan is part of INDIA or was part of INDIA......
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 19 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]892144[/snapback]
I asked for a credible link.... from World Bank/IMF/ or CIA likewise....
Not from Pak's official websites
r u stupid or what? u think some foreign organisations will knw the condition of the Pakistani economy better than the Pakistani govt????
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 19 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]892144[/snapback]
I asked for a credible link.... from World Bank/IMF/ or CIA likewise....
Not from Pak's official websites
Cia and WB are outdated and IMF at best do estimates and still put Pakistan per capita way higher then India.
QUOTE(fingolfin361 @ Apr 18 2007, 05:13 AM) [snapback]891721[/snapback]
Im not sure on what the figures are for nominal PCI, but India's PCI at PPP (which is a better indication, as it negates the influence of exchange rates) is about a $1000 more than Pakistan's.
Khiladi, PCI is a comparitive measure which takes into account population size, so your reply to my earlier post doesnt explain anything.
I still dont understand what measures Mr. Ahmad has used. I'm sure his figures are accurate according to the measures and weightages he has used, but i cannot comment on their accuracy until i understand them properly.
Also, I wanted to ask people here, how strong is the middle class in Pakistan? My impression is that the Rich-poor divide is very large. Like peole with tons of ancestral wealth and people in the Army and other government related professions are usually the most well off. Is this true? Most Pakistani kids in colleges here that I have met come from very rich families or their parents are Diplomats of some capacity. In contrast a much larger proportion of Indians i have met here (such as myself) come from more modest families. So that is my basis for comparison. Would like to hear members' thoughts on this.
India on 20 cents a day
The fine print in the reporting of global poverty estimates
by Aseem Shrivastava
November 26, 2006
The World Bank - which has to be applauded for having made the first such attempt started making international comparisons of poverty only about two decades back. For obvious reasons of convenience it developed two simple notions of poverty. The US Treasury being the power behind the institution, and the dollar being the reserve currency by design, the lower poverty line was set at $1 a day per capita. Those below it were considered to be “the poorest of the poor”. The upper poverty line was set at $2 a day. Those living on $1-2 a day were still poor, but not as badly off. The updated numbers today, corrected for inflation, are $1.08 and $2.15.
The vagaries of purchasing power (dis)parities
However, there was a problem. It was realized that $1 goes much farther in purchasing necessary items of consumption in a poor country compared to a rich one. (Moreover, exchange rates do not take into account non-traded goods.) Using prevailing exchange rates, Rs.45 can buy more in India than $1 can in America. So unless it was corrected for the lower cost of living in poor countries – enabling access to a bigger amount of real goods for the same amount of money – this measure of poverty was likely to give an overestimate of the number of poor people living in absolute poverty. To make purchasing power across countries comparable, economists developed what is known as the PPP (purchasing power parity) index. Taking into account the lower cost of living in impoverished countries, a conversion factor is now applied to market exchange rates to calculate what is minimally necessary to survive there.
Using widely quoted World Bank numbers on GDP, this conversion factor for a country like India (2005) can be computed to be approximately 5.3. This means that $1.08 a day in India should effectively imply a purchasing power of about 20 cents a day to an American – or indeed anyone – unacquainted with the nuances of PPP calculations. However, given how the numbers are quoted everywhere, the dominant impression that is conveyed is that the poor are living on less than $1 or $2 a day when, in fact, it would be enormously more accurate, as far as everyday English is concerned, to say that the poor are living on less than $0.20 or $0.40 a day. The reason why this is not done is obvious: it would give an even more alarming picture of the scale and depth of poverty across this enormously wealthy world. Most decent people are shocked enough by the understated numbers in the form they are widely quoted. More reality would numb and paralyze even the grittiest of activists. “Humanity”, T.S.Eliot wrote, “cannot bear much reality.” He had the privileged in mind.
The most recent World Bank estimates for India are based on household surveys carried out in 1999-2000. It was found that almost 80% of purported superpower India’s population was surviving on less than $2.15 a day (in PPP terms). That is, about 800 million people were living on $0.40 a day or less. Nearly 35% (350 million) were found to be living on $0.20 a day or less. Even if the proportion of poor people has fallen somewhat during the past 5-6 years, the absolute numbers would not look too different today.
I have asked several non-experts abroad who have traveled to India, and are thus somewhat familiar with market exchange rates, how they interpret the $1 a day or $2 a day figure. The answer is: literally. In other words, they think that really poor Indians (35% of the population) live on less than Rs.45 and less poor Indians (another 45% of the population) live on between Rs.45-90 a day. In their imagination that is bad enough for Western countries to send aid to poor countries.
However, if their belief was in fact correct then (assuming Rs.20 a day to be the minimum needed to supply the 2200 calories of food intake – and minimal nutrition - that agricultural economists and the UN take to be the survival norm appropriately averaged across age groups, locations and kinds of labor) at least the additional 450-500 million who would be living in the Rs.45-90 a day range would be well out of poverty. In fact, a substantial proportion of the people living under the lower poverty line would be out of poverty too. There might perhaps remain some 50 to 100 million poor, malnourished Indians whose long-term welfare could easily be looked after by the prosperity all around.
Not only would Indian politicians, government officials, businessmen and heir consultants be jumping out of their seats in sheer disbelief that their superpower fantasies may actually be realized, but if this state of affairs was representative of the impoverished world as a whole, the World Bank would be out of business, their achieved goal of a “world free of poverty” having ironically led them there!
Sadly, the reality is closer to “a world free of the poor”. Thanks to the subtleties of PPP calculations it may quite possibly be the case that the number of people across the world who are not able to meet the minimum standards for adequate nutrition is anywhere from 3 to 4 billion, rather than the officially estimated 2.7 billion who are estimated to be living under $2 a day. No one really knows. In other words, we could all be off by a whole continent!
Some experts in the field, such as Sanjay Reddy of Columbia University or Robert Wade of the London School of Economics advise deep skepticism about prevailing official estimates, especially of alleged changes thereof on account of globalization. Wade advocates that “the political economy of statistics” is crucial and argues for greater competition in the market for the generation of international poverty data, so far a de facto monopoly of the World Bank. No free market there! There is intense debate among economists and policy-makers as to just how much poverty there is in the world and whether it is going up or down with globalization. According to one expert Angus Deaton, “it seems impossible to make statements about changes in world poverty when the ground underneath one’s feet is changing in this way.”
Where do the World Bank experts go wrong? A few of them are even known to this writer, and are reliable people of otherwise unimpeachable integrity. Being a drop-out economist myself I appreciate the trials and tribulations of the economists and statisticians at the World Bank who compute the numbers on poverty. It is a harrowing mine-field of data they must negotiate on a daily basis in order to arrive at the sort of numbers the world and its policy-makers are interested in. The challenge of measuring poverty and the (changes thereof) accurately, in a world as diverse, complex and dynamic as ours, is immense. But after decades of effort by trained statisticians it should have become possible by now to arrive at somewhat reliable numbers.
The problem is, at bottom, be political, rather than one of expertise. The very fact that when making comparisons between enriched and impoverished countries, all monetary magnitudes have to be inflated significantly to get a sense of real values in the poor world should have been a matter of great ethical concern to economists, something to make them wonder as to how things got to this point. In a world of markets stretched across mountainously uneven playing fields, pricing is determined not so much by the real costs (to human labor and to nature) incurred but by historically determined economic forces like the willingness and ability to pay. Typically, the latter are shaped in profound ways by legacies of inequalities in wealth and power which mainstream economists are trained to avoid taking into account while preparing their advocacy of “free” markets. In the real world, as against the general equilibrium models microeconomists are schooled in, few things are as politically shaped and formed as the structure of relative prices. In particular, the price of labor – wages – is almost entirely a matter of bargaining, as also, we are realizing, the price of utilizing nature.
Moreover, in our increasingly packaged consumerist world even global poverty figures must ultimately arrive in a wrapping that is not unpalatably unattractive to the public. Trickle-down will ultimately work, we are repeatedly assured by growth economists. But like the late John Kenneth Galbraith is said to have remarked acerbically, faith in trickle-down is a bit like feeding race horses superior oats so that starving sparrows can forage in their dung. All indications, especially in parts of the world like rural India, are that a decade and a half of corporate globalization has left undernutrition and malnutrition all but intact, and might quite possibly have worsened the predicament for many millions.
Numbed (by the numbers)
In a world which has been brought up to regard numerical precision as a sign of scientific rigor, it easily gets forgotten (especially by mainstream economists) that poverty is not merely a matter of numbers. Numbers can only tell us about what the experts call “income poverty”. Modern standards of living involve large amounts of intangibles and social consumption, known to economists as “public goods”: drinking water, public sanitation, health and education are only some of the services which people in rich countries take for granted because they have been traditionally guaranteed by the state (though in recent years private corporations have queued up, often successfully – especially in impoverished countries – to take control and possession of these services). When these are taken into account it becomes clear that what the experts call the “poverty line” is actually more accurately labeled “starvation line”, as some people will have it. Many Indian economists have been advocating a serious upward revision of the poverty line in order to get a better grasp of the economic reality.
Economists have tried to remedy the situation by evolving during the last few decades the Human Development Index (HDI), calculated and issued by the UNDP every year. It tries to take into account life expectancy (as an indicator of health) and levels of adult literacy and enrolment (as indicators of education), apart from considering per capita incomes. It is certainly an improvement over raw numbers for poverty. And yet, if India’s HDI is 0.63 and Norway’s is 0.96, busy eyes will be tempted to conclude that Norwegians live only one and a half times as well as Indians! The crushing quality of human poverty in a cruel world simply cannot be captured by numbers like this. Nor can the enormity of the environmental damage from deregulated industrial growth be captured, as the World Bank tries to do, in its Little Green Data Book, by just offering estimates of greenhouse gas emissions, depletion of forest cover and a few other measurable magnitudes. The ecosystemic effects of runaway industrial growth – the damage done to climatic balances for instance – are possible to observe now, but not as easily quantified. There are exponential and synergetic changes taking place – for the worse – which might take the best informed experts by surprise.
Perhaps, we would do well to remember Einstein’s counsel: “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” The poverty measurement industry loses much sleep and sweat over details that do not matter much. The big picture, perhaps unsurprisingly, is inaccurately reported. The propaganda efforts of governments and corporations succeed in the end in keeping some of the more terrible effects of prevailing economic policies from clear public view, undermining democratic transparency and potential accountability.
Rather than get drowned in swirling oceans of data, we might look for the prominent ridges on the gyrating currents of the monetized economy. However, it is then important to locate them precisely and, crucially, label and flag them accurately. Busy readers don’t have time to interpret the fine print. And public patience with economists wears thin.
We only count and measure what is useful, important or interesting. By measuring we indicate that we care about what is measured. The score on poverty, especially if it is shameful, is worth keeping, if only to remind us of the extent of the failure of globalization not merely to change the lives of the poor but perhaps in turning them for the worse. (If China has lifted tens of millions of families out of poverty, the secret of their success lies in the years and decades preceding globalization – in the early 1980s rural reforms were carried out, among other things, granting access to land to the rural poor. Besides, the strong foundations of the social infrastructure – education and health – were laid down in the era of communism. Globalization has only allowed the country to reap the harvest of pre-existing investments better.)
If global poverty statistics are not disseminated accurately, the facts on the ground will only get worse – thanks to misinformed policy-making among other things – and will one day command dreadful obedience from one and all. The rulers of the day risk the implications of Colin Powell’s faux pas a few years back - of boasting that the number of dead Iraqi civilians did not interest him very much. And the potential consequences across the globe could be as catastrophic as what Iraq is experiencing today.
Aseem Shrivastava is an independent writer. He can be reached at aseem62@yahoo.com
now can you tell me one live with 2$ per day can affort to study in develping countries, remember 80% indian live 2$ per day
QUOTE(khiladi4you @ Apr 19 2007, 05:11 AM) [snapback]892215[/snapback]
Cia and WB are outdated and IMF at best do estimates and still put Pakistan per capita way higher then India.
hello boss, CIA/WB are not outdated, any gobal financial org calculates any GDP / GNI income on actuals, i.e after the end of financial year ..., they dont publish results based on estimations.
now its 2007, so they will have data for 2006, not 2007. :),
and if u talk abt estimates for 2007, can u put up an indendent,credible link which shows pak's per capita higher than india's ?? and then talk
QUOTE(Skull-Buster @ Apr 19 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]892202[/snapback]
r u stupid or what? u think some foreign organisations will knw the condition of the Pakistani economy better than the Pakistani govt????
u r a stupid for sure, bcoz even u dont know how GDP results are published around the globe.
GDP results are always published by international finance orgs like World Bank/ IMF ..etc , not by own govts.. And these are taken as official .
U r under a military Govt which will post higher growth rates/ higher GDP to keep people cool...for its own survivability.
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 19 2007, 01:17 PM) [snapback]892234[/snapback]
hello boss, CIA/WB are not outdated, any gobal financial org calculates any GDP / GNI income on actuals, i.e after the end of financial year ..., they dont publish results based on estimations.
now its 2007, so they will have data for 2006, not 2007. :),
and if u talk abt estimates for 2007, can u put up an indendent,credible link which shows pak's per capita higher than india's ?? and then talk
u r a stupid for sure, bcoz even u dont know how GDP results are published around the globe.
GDP results are always published by international finance orgs like World Bank/ IMF ..etc , not by own govts.. And these are taken as official .
U r under a military Govt which will post higher growth rates/ higher GDP to keep people cool...for its own survivability.
One question what is India's total GDP? I want official figures.
QUOTE(1pakistani @ Apr 19 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]892192[/snapback]
Interesting thing to notice of ADB website
South Asia
South Asia consists of:
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Sri Lanka
http://www.adb.org/SouthAsia/default.asp
Central and West Asia:
Afghanistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
http://www.adb.org/CentralWestAsia/default.asp
Just none economic related issue. Well isnt this a slap inthe face for those who believe pakistan is part of INDIA or was part of INDIA......
You can quote it in other way also i.e, ADB doesn’t know where Pakistan is. It is quite a shameful that an agency like ADB doesn’t recognize Pakistan’s land mass properly . . . . .
QUOTE(kmc @ Apr 19 2007, 09:56 PM) [snapback]892246[/snapback]
You can quote it in other way also i.e, ADB doesn’t know where Pakistan is. It is quite a shameful that an agency like ADB doesn’t recognize Pakistan’s land mass properly . . . . .
Well im gonna go off topic.
But mate they havnt got it wrong but got it spot on. Pakistan is not South Asian country but rather Central Asian country. Our histoy, culture and Language is far more Central Asian than South Asian. Howver the only similarity u will find between u guys and us is due to the rule of 600+ years by muslims over india and thats the only reason u will find some similarities. However as i said previously it is slap in ppls face who want to join Pakistan with indian and im affraid its almost all of india which want to take over us.................
QUOTE(khiladi4you @ Apr 19 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]892244[/snapback]
One question what is India's total GDP? I want official figures.
khiladi4you,
ADVANCE ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL INCOME, 2006-07
2.2 Gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices : Indian Rupees 41,00,636 Crores
In International Terms = Indian Rupees 41,006.36 Billion
At USD 1 = Indian Rupees 45 it Equates to USD 911.26 BILLION
At USD 1 = Indian Rupees 44 it Equates to USD 931.97 BILLION
At USD 1 = Indian Rupees 43 it Equates to USD 953.64 BILLION
Today’s USD-INR Rate : USD 1 = INR 42.15
Please take your pick.
Peace
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 19 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]892234[/snapback]
GDP results are always published by international finance orgs like World Bank/ IMF ..etc , not by own govts.. And these are taken as official .
U r under a military Govt which will post higher growth rates/ higher GDP to keep people cool...for its own survivability.
lol...so u r going to teach me economics?
world bank/imf dont guess the GDP, GDP is based on figures which only a country's govt can knw the exact figure.
QUOTE(Skull-Buster @ Apr 19 2007, 07:38 AM) [snapback]892256[/snapback]
lol...so u r going to teach me economics?
world bank/imf dont guess the GDP, GDP is based on figures which only a country's govt can knw the exact figure.World Bank/ IMF publish results after the Govt declare the actual figures with every detail...They will scrutinize every calculation.. Dont think that if a Govt gives a higher GDP for getting a political mileage, WB will blindly take that figure as it is.
All this will happen well after the end of the financial year.... Whatever Govt declares before the actuals is a mere estimation & does nt hold any water ...
dude, lets stop this here..
QUOTE(1pakistani @ Apr 19 2007, 07:32 AM) [snapback]892254[/snapback]
Well im gonna go off topic.
But mate they havnt got it wrong but got it spot on. Pakistan is not South Asian country but rather Central Asian country. Our histoy, culture and Language is far more Central Asian than South Asian. Howver the only similarity u will find between u guys and us is due to the rule of 600+ years by muslims over india and thats the only reason u will find some similarities. However as i said previously it is slap in ppls face who want to join Pakistan with indian and im affraid its almost all of india which want to take over us.................
Boss, I guess it was typo to put Pak in central Asia.
To confirm this, browse their website, they always put Pak,India,Bangladesh, SL, Maldives always together in their analysis of south asia
example:
http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2007/116...ments-outlooks/
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 19 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]892264[/snapback]
World Bank/ IMF publish results after the Govt declare the actual figures with every detail...They will scrutinize every calculation.. Dont think that if a Govt gives a higher GDP for getting a political mileage, WB will blindly take that figure as it is.
All this will happen well after the end of the financial year.... Whatever Govt declares before the actuals is a mere estimation & does nt hold any water ...
Couple of months ago IMF put Pakistan GDP for 2007 at $147 billion yes $147 billion and now its $141 billion. While Pak Gov recently put official figures at $135 billion, there goes any credibility left in IMF and others figures. They change figures based on estimates heck they have even put Pak GDP at $154 billion for 2008 now how this is possible? I would rather believe in official figures rather then estimates.
QUOTE(kmc @ Apr 19 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]892246[/snapback]
You can quote it in other way also i.e, ADB doesn’t know where Pakistan is. It is quite a shameful that an agency like ADB doesn’t recognize Pakistan’s land mass properly . . . . .
relax buddy! every one in the world knows where Pakistan is... except a curry eating mallu who has a fake Yem Bee Yay (mallu version of MBA) degree from MIT (mallu institute of technology).
so just lift your lungi up a bit and take a chill pill.
Are service exports included in pakistani export figure of $18bil?
QUOTE(1pakistani @ Apr 19 2007, 06:32 AM) [snapback]892254[/snapback]
Well im gonna go off topic.
But mate they havnt got it wrong but got it spot on. Pakistan is not South Asian country but rather Central Asian country. Our histoy, culture and Language is far more Central Asian than South Asian. Howver the only similarity u will find between u guys and us is due to the rule of 600+ years by muslims over india and thats the only reason u will find some similarities. However as i said previously it is slap in ppls face who want to join Pakistan with indian and im affraid its almost all of india which want to take over us.................
there are number of pakistanis, who are actually immigrated to pakistan during parition., (so does many indian families from Pakistan)., I think of Most of the Pakistan families has roots with India (present geographical india)., then regarding culture, i agree, pakistan chooses to adopt central asian cultuer rather than south asian culture, becoz, they feel later is inferior !!!!
Going to have to agree with the above post. Pakistan is a lot more South Asian, than it is central asian. Only one of our ethnic groups share a language with Central Asia. Majority of Pakistanis are of Indian background, or former British India or the Mughal empire.
Whatever the per capita income, India has the political advantage that its system is stable because its a democracy. We dont know how the economy of Pakistan will react if the present government ends. We dont have a system set up, which is what dissappoints me about Musharraf. Even though i think he's been a good leader, he still hasn't setup a system that will ensure Pakistan a proper government once he has moved on.
Whatever the per capita income, India has the political advantage that its system is stable because its a democracy. We dont know how the economy of Pakistan will react if the present government ends. We dont have a system set up, which is what dissappoints me about Musharraf. Even though i think he's been a good leader, he still hasn't setup a system that will ensure Pakistan a proper government once he has moved on.
We dont share anything with Indians. Please dont be ignorant, its all Indian propaganda so they can claim ancient Pakistani history, associate it with Hinduism, and pretend to be ancient. (indus valley, mehragh culture) Its a joke.
Mougal empire and Kushun empire originate from Pakistan anyway. Whats so Indian about that?
Indians are living the Pakistani culture, not opposite. If you want to see real Indians, go to South India. Thats Indian culture.
Mougal empire and Kushun empire originate from Pakistan anyway. Whats so Indian about that?
Indians are living the Pakistani culture, not opposite. If you want to see real Indians, go to South India. Thats Indian culture.
QUOTE(starshine @ Apr 19 2007, 11:03 PM) [snapback]892264[/snapback]
Boss, I guess it was typo to put Pak in central Asia.
To confirm this, browse their website, they always put Pak,India,Bangladesh, SL, Maldives always together in their analysis of south asia
example:
http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2007/116...ments-outlooks/
Well one report well that might be typo coz if u read abt south asian develpment on ADB u wont find paksitan name in it.
QUOTE(kamal @ Apr 20 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]892472[/snapback]
there are number of pakistanis, who are actually immigrated to pakistan during parition., (so does many indian families from Pakistan)., I think of Most of the Pakistan families has roots with India (present geographical india)., then regarding culture, i agree, pakistan chooses to adopt central asian cultuer rather than south asian culture, becoz, they feel later is inferior !!!!
Hahahahaha
U go bak and learn history. For ur sake when parition occured on 17% of pakistans population was Indian migrants. Bharis went into East paksitan and others settled in West Pakistan, especially Karachi and many other locations. However it was only 17% of the population and with separation of bangladesh u can assume the percentage of pakistani who were indian migrant is abt 15% and if u go and read the history u will find out pakistan was part of first islamic empire and india was latter invaded and caputred. Futher paksitan land was refered to as INDUS while indian were refered to as HIND. SO as some1 said its only pakistani culutre which derives from Central Asia, IRan, Turkey and Arabia, influenced indian culture. But no way ur argument has any susbstants.
FOR REFERENCE SAKE ASK PYSCHO TO EXPLAIN THIS TO U
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.