90 percent Pakistanis are poor

[Nelson]

Looks like everyone is poor and "Mr (remaining) 10 Percent" is rich!!

 

[Mech]

I do not believe the 90 percent figure. 53 percent is very likely though. It will only continue to rise.

 

[Icarus]

Already done?? How? I don't see any factual arguments or data. Just questioning their data doesn't invalidate their arguments, you word against theirs and you dint appear qualified enough to question their credibility to start with.

And what's with " not liking" my posts, I understand truth may be hard to swallow sometimes, and you don't scare me lil boy. Just go ahead and do what you feel like having been owned

I rechecked and I seem to have posted reference to a UNDP report dated 2006 and a graph of a similar World Bank report dated 2005. If that isn't data then kindly explain to me what is.
Truth(so-called) offered with an underlying, yet totally blatant(paradox intended) personal insult pretty much equates it to a mindless rant. Reference to your dialogue with RazPak.

As for not being qualified, sorry, I found my doctorate from a cereal carton. I'll call in a plumber, maybe he can suit your profile of someone "qualified".

 

[Bobby]

Yes Indians we are very poor. You are the wealthiest people on Earth.

No hard feelings.
India has lots of poor and we believe data so you also accept it.
Without accepting the reality you can not resolve the issues.
We realized the poverty so our poverty is going down...Pakistan problem in not poverty its problem is that poverty is growing day by day....

 

[Icarus]

Now we are talking, reports from 6-7 Years back right?
Your doctorate from the cereal college definitely would have taught you the subtle distinction between ignorance and lying by omission as I recall from my days in Chicago.
Definitely neither you or me need to throw around qualifications since this is the Internet.

The issue here is your word against theirs, doesn't take much to figure out which carries more weight.

If you mean to say that poverty has jumped over 80% on an inflation rate of 14% in the past 4 years then we are witnessing an economic phenomenon that is unprecedented in human history as even Zimbabwe with an inflation rate of 231,000,000% took 6 years to reach only an 80% of the population living below the poverty line.

I don't mean to base my argument on qualifications either but since you thought I was not "qualified" to discuss the issue, I thought I should find someone more suited to your definition of the word.

 

[Bobby]

If you mean to say that poverty has jumped over 80% on an inflation rate of 14% in the past 4 years then we are witnessing an economic phenomenon that is unprecedented in human history as even Zimbabwe with an inflation rate of 231,000,000% took 6 years to reach only an 80% of the population living below the poverty line.

I don't mean to base my argument on qualifications either but since you thought I was not "qualified" to discuss the issue, I thought I should find someone more suited to your definition of the word.

There is a difference between poor and below poverty line.
For Pakistan - poor are 90% while below poverty line is 53%

 

[JonAsad]

There is a difference between poor and below poverty line.
For Pakistan - poor are 90% while below poverty line is 53%

why for Pakistan only?-

 

[Icarus]

There is a difference between poor and below poverty line.
For Pakistan - poor are 90% while below poverty line is 53%

WHAT TYPE OF A LOGIC IS THAT ?????????????????????????????
SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LITERACY AND NUMBER OF LITERATE PEOPLE TOO ?

 

[Icarus]

Yeah now some numbers make sense, this is nice.

So I am just using your numbers here, 14% cOmpounded inflation devalues wealth by ~70%.over 4 years, even more over 6 7 years. Assuming normal distribution of wealth, that would make 35% of existing above poverty level guys below it.
So 50 + 35 makes 85%, not much difference to the 90% quotes here.

Astronomical as it may seem, you can support those numbers using pure mathematics.

The UNDP figure quotes 17% below the poverty line in 2006, the number below poverty line does not increase by the formula that you quoted, people who earn less than US$ 2 per day are considered to be living below the poverty line. The PKR has fallen from 62:1 to 90:1 as compared to US$ but the pays have also risen, neutralizing the effect.

 

[Deepak123]

If you mean to say that poverty has jumped over 80% on an inflation rate of 14% in the past 4 years then we are witnessing an economic phenomenon that is unprecedented in human history as even Zimbabwe with an inflation rate of 231,000,000% took 6 years to reach only an 80% of the population living below the poverty line.

I don't mean to base my argument on qualifications either but since you thought I was not "qualified" to discuss the issue, I thought I should find someone more suited to your definition of the word.

I found this graph on Google. This shows poverty always swings in Pakistan and there was rapid decrease in poverty in Pakistan by 12% in Pakistan from 2002-2006 in 4 yrs. If this rapid decrease is possible with normal GDP growth rate then this rapid increase also seems possible for Pakistan. And graph also shows increase in poverty from 99-02

World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance - Google Public Data Explorer

 

[JonAsad]

indians with their twisted logics- on an international forum- giving us a good laugh-

 

[Deepak123]

The UNDP figure quotes 17% below the poverty line in 2006, .

UNDP figure is 22.3% for 2006, even CIA has 2006 figure and World Bank also have 2006 figure. 17% figure is for 2007 but nobody actually believes in that figure.

 

[ares]

If you mean to say that poverty has jumped over 80% on an inflation rate of 14% in the past 4 years then we are witnessing an economic phenomenon that is unprecedented in human history as even Zimbabwe with an inflation rate of 231,000,000% took 6 years to reach only an 80% of the population living below the poverty line.

I don't mean to base my argument on qualifications either but since you thought I was not "qualified" to discuss the issue, I thought I should find someone more suited to your definition of the word.

The fact you should understand is that "poor" and poverty is not same thing.
While poor is relative term(ie if I am richest man, then everybody else is poorer than me) where as being "below poverty" is an absolute term.

What you have posted are the poverty figures for 2005(23.9%)..which no one disputes..hell even 2006 figures of 22.3% BPL are undisputed.
It is what that has happened in next 6 yrs which more than doubled your poverty rates to 53%.

Studies show, unless a country is experiencing a growth rate of more than 6% .. it poverty level either remain stagnant or grow depending on prevalent inflation and population growth rate.

But Pakistan has been state of constant stagflation for last 5 yrs(2007 when your growth rate had dropped to 3.6%)
Pakistan grown at average of 2.4% in last 4yrs.


This is coupled with backbreaking inflation ranging from 25%-13% in last 4yrs.

To top it, Pakistan's population is expanding at 1.8 - 2% during the same period.

These three factors ie High population growth, low economic growth and high inflation have resulted in phenomenal increase in people BPL.

During present economic condition, 5 million people are moving below poverty line every year..hence it is not surprising if poverty rates in Pakistan are touching 53%.

 

[Bobby]

WHAT TYPE OF A LOGIC IS THAT ?????????????????????????????
SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LITERACY AND NUMBER OF LITERATE PEOPLE TOO ?

Poor is relative term
But below poverty is defined as earning below $1.25 a day. (one time food, no toilet etc)
So you can say earning above $1.25 a day to lacking daily living necessities is poor
having daily living necessities is middle class
having luxury things are rich class

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

why for Pakistan only?-

It applies to all countries including India.
It's a fact which India or Pakistan can not deny or ignore

 

[illusion8]

indians with their twisted logics- on an international forum- giving us a good laugh-

Its not what Indians are saying, Its what your own economists are saying. It is upon yourselves to believe it or not.