What's new

Is Foreign Aid a Blessing or a Curse For Pakistan?

Who cares if they were wearing a sari or not?

They're called pedi-cabs:


home-main.jpg





slide2.jpg


They are here in San Diego too

Pedicab Advertising | Pedicab Outdoor Media | VIP Pedicab company
 
Taxes and Politicians at this point in life, are two separate issues. Let's say, if the country needs $ 100 worth of taxes to be collected to pay for all basic services to people, but they only collect $ 40, you are still short of $ 60. So you are right, people who paid $ 40, still won't see their Taxes at work, as its lower than needed. But then, when you actually get $ 100 in taxes, and you don't have aid, etc, and you don't see any benefits provided, then you shouldn't vote for those leaders, or take them to SC for an investigation (btw, loans will always be there to some capacity as that's how the world does business)[/QUOTE

These are Pakistani dog leaders honestly they are real beggars.

general raheel looks legit and honest i prefer hard core military rule. nobody dare break the law.
 
It is a curse, as they come with many black deals & agreement.
 
When i came across the news that not Pakistan or israel but infact india is the biggest recipient of American aid in the past 6 decades.

was upset for a while but being a person with soft heart and thinking for hours,i came to the conclusion that indians being the poorest community on earth and that is to remain so for the next few centuries,they need far more aid than us

I was so "hurt" and "saddened" too but hey - some need it more than others

All industries take loans ( only fools use their own money). The banks paying them term their customers as assets.

Some repay debts, increase their turnover and start new ventures . In other words grow. The bank too grows.

Others , meanwhile take more & more debts offer their assets ( real estate) as collateral , do not pay , negotiate with banks & re schedule their loan repayments. These are called non performing assets. Each time they ask for more money the bank impose stringent terms.

Good luck.
 
#Aid in reverse: Net flow of $2 trillion from poor to rich nations recorded in 2012. #Trade #Investment #Interest

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...rse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries

...for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.


In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States

What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.

What do these large outflows consist of? Well, some of it is payments on debt. Developing countries have forked out over $4.2tn in interest payments alone since 1980 – a direct cash transfer to big banks in New York and London, on a scale that dwarfs the aid that they received during the same period. Another big contributor is the income that foreigners make on their investments in developing countries and then repatriate back home. Think of all the profits that BP extracts from Nigeria’s oil reserves, for example, or that Anglo-American pulls out of South Africa’s gold mines.

But by far the biggest chunk of outflows has to do with unrecorded – and usually illicit – capital flight. GFI calculates that developing countries have lost a total of $13.4tn through unrecorded capital flight since 1980.

Most of these unrecorded outflows take place through the international trade system. Basically, corporations – foreign and domestic alike – report false prices on their trade invoices in order to spirit money out of developing countries directly into tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, a practice known as “trade misinvoicing”. Usually the goal is to evade taxes, but sometimes this practice is used to launder money or circumvent capital controls. In 2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid receipts that year by a factor of five.

Multinational companies also steal money from developing countries through “same-invoice faking”, shifting profits illegally between their own subsidiaries by mutually faking trade invoice prices on both sides. For example, a subsidiary in Nigeria might dodge local taxes by shifting money to a related subsidiary in the British Virgin Islands, where the tax rate is effectively zero and where stolen funds can’t be traced.

GFI doesn’t include same-invoice faking in its headline figures because it is very difficult to detect, but they estimate that it amounts to another $700bn per year. And these figures only cover theft through trade in goods. If we add theft through trade in services to the mix, it brings total net resource outflows to about $3tn per year.

That’s 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.
 
It's as simple as everything else. As long as the money is used for long term investment and infrastructure its a blessing, however if it is used in simple consumer market that can't produce value its a curse
 
Being a student of finance, I know, for sure, that debt to some extent is very healthy if utilized properly. However, debt beyond the healthy limit are cancer that can eat up the economy.
 
To my understanding , its a vicious cycle without impacting nation's development.

if donor gives you $100 , it will ask you to buy things, or spend it at their will. You will end up with buying goods and services at a very high price . It will not end up here. A high % of expenditure will go as CUT to both key persons of donor as well as recipient. This will not be tracked by law in the land of the donor and receipient

These key beneficiaries from both sides keep this saga sustainable at whatever cost. Its a clear , healthy and safe process of corruption.

Less that 10% of the donation is actually used for country's development
 
If foreign countries want to help Pakistan they should seize assets of corrupt Pakistanis and deduct it from loan amount and they must put Pakistani govt under pressure to stop corruption
 

Back
Top Bottom