Impact of Nationalization on Pakistan's Economic development

[Khafee]

You dont get the pun...Mr 10% because that is what he leaves for the state..90% goes to him and his cronies!

Apologies.

 

[somebozo]

ok - i don't know the history of nationalisation in Pakistan. If the government grabbed other peoples assets that was wrong, they should have at least compensated them for it.

If you dont know history then its better to look wise by keeping quiet rather than stupid by saying something foolish...Bhutto ruined the country and turned it into a beggar pot..the economic vacuum created by Bhutto was exploited by US and Saudi funding to create jehadist..hardcore working people went from working in the factories to fighting jehad in Afghanistan.

Between 1977-95 , C M Latif had waged a one man crsusade for the return of his unit which is currently being sold by the Privatization Commisssion in several lots of realy estate. In an advertisement in the daily Business Recorder of February 1, 1991 C M Latif demanded return of BECO to former owners and reminisced about his factory in the following poem, intitled ( Food for thought

Stealing from people

 

[313ghazi]

If you dont know history then its better to look wise by keeping quiet rather than stupid by saying something foolish...Bhutto ruined the country and turned it into a beggar pot..the economic vacuum created by Bhutto was exploited by US and Saudi funding to create jehadist..hardcore working people went from working in the factories to fighting jehad in Afghanistan.



Stealing from people

Just because Pakistan had a bad experience with socialism doesn't mean the ideology is bad. The best countries in the world are socialist at heart. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, these guys all get it. The good human conditions and living standards in the EU are due to socialist policies.

Blaming socialism for the piss pot that is the history of Pakistani governance since practically day 1 - that's ignorance.

 

[Khafee]

Just because Pakistan had a bad experience with socialism doesn't mean the ideology is bad. The best countries in the world are socialist at heart. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, these guys all get it. The good human conditions and living standards in the EU are due to socialist policies.

Blaming socialism for the piss pot that is the history of Pakistani governance since practically day 1 - that's ignorance.

Blaming socialism, for traitor politicians ----that makes a lot sense, don't you think so?

 

[313ghazi]

Blaming socialism, for traitor politicians ----that makes a lot sense, don't you think so?

If you study the time of the first 4 caliphs you note the change in the standards of living was bought about by ideas that socialists today have picked up and used. It's better to have a million full stomaches than a single millionaire. Trickle down is a defunt lie, proven again and again by the economic collapses in the west. The concept of universal income, something economists are talking about today due to heavy automation, was put in place by Umar (ra).

Nationalisation (done properly) is one way of ensuring that the poorest in society have what they need. In Pakistan everything fails, not just nationalisation.

 

[Khafee]

If you study the time of the first 4 caliphs you note the change in the standards of living was bought about by ideas that socialists today have picked up and used. It's better to have a million full stomaches than a single millionaire. Trickle down is a defunt lie, proven again and again by the economic collapses in the west. The concept of universal income, something economists are talking about today due to heavy automation, was put in place by Umar (ra).

Nationalisation (done properly) is one way of ensuring that the poorest in society have what they need. In Pakistan everything fails, not just nationalisation.

Very well said.

Unfortunately Bhutto's intention were never sincere from day one. His intentions weren't socialist in nature, it was greed. Hence it "had to" fail.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If you study the time of the first 4 caliphs you note the change in the standards of living was bought about by ideas that socialists today have picked up and used. It's better to have a million full stomaches than a single millionaire. Trickle down is a defunt lie, proven again and again by the economic collapses in the west. The concept of universal income, something economists are talking about today due to heavy automation, was put in place by Umar (ra).

Nationalisation (done properly) is one way of ensuring that the poorest in society have what they need. In Pakistan everything fails, not just nationalisation.

Interesting to note that Rasul'Allah (saw) gave an axe to someone so that they can earn a living. It seems Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto would look around, find someone with 10 axes, and then take 11 of them under "nationalization".

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

 

[The Sandman]

I'm saving this what a share man what a share! but venture capitalism is the most confusing thing in this and traditional capitalism seems best option
@django @Nilgiri @Zibago @Hell hound

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

I'm saving this what a share man what a share! but venture capitalism is the most confusing thing in this and traditional capitalism seems best option

Don't worry no one does. That's why the US Securities and Exchange Commission employees decided to better spend their time jerking off to p0rn that's why it's legal.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/sec-pornography-employees-spent-hours-surfing-****-sites/story?id=10452544

There's another report that they didn't know what certain financial services (derivatives and stuff) were.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

Ghazi sb,

The best countries in the world are socialist at heart. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, these guys all get it.

European countries became capitalist first, with the wealth that was accumulated, they were able to fund their welfare state.

Regards

 

[somebozo]

Just because Pakistan had a bad experience with socialism doesn't mean the ideology is bad. The best countries in the world are socialist at heart. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, these guys all get it. The good human conditions and living standards in the EU are due to socialist policies.

Blaming socialism for the piss pot that is the history of Pakistani governance since practically day 1 - that's ignorance.

Socialism hasnt worked anywhere and Venezuela is next shining example..i lived it socialist economy of Saudi Arabia and it sucked big time...Scandinavian countries cited as example of socialism are actually more capitalist friendly than USA itself.

Commies and Jialayas with tons of corruption money are the only two class of people who justify Bhutto!

Ghazi sb,

The best countries in the world are socialist at heart. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, these guys all get it.

European countries became capitalist first, with the wealth that was accumulated, they were able to fund their welfare state.

Regards

These countries are more capital friendly that US of A.
Check global ranking..the concept of welfare state is itself derived from Capitalism..
Russia exactly did not build a welfare state by sending 80 million to death camps neither did the Germans.
It was simply loot and redistribute.

If you study the time of the first 4 caliphs you note the change in the standards of living was bought about by ideas that socialists today have picked up and used. It's better to have a million full stomaches than a single millionaire. Trickle down is a defunt lie, proven again and again by the economic collapses in the west. The concept of universal income, something economists are talking about today due to heavy automation, was put in place by Umar (ra).

Nationalisation (done properly) is one way of ensuring that the poorest in society have what they need. In Pakistan everything fails, not just nationalisation.

the change in living standards at large was bought by conquest and plunder of new lands..especially Roman Syria and Persian Iran both of which were the wealthiest in middle east. The Arabs at large did not work anything as they do not work anything today either..
The most dangerous kind of commie theories are those cross breed between sharia and socialism..

 

[313ghazi]

Socialism hasnt worked anywhere and Venezuela is next shining example..i lived it socialist economy of Saudi Arabia and it sucked big time...Scandinavian countries cited as example of socialism are actually more capitalist friendly than USA itself.

The most dangerous kind of commie theories are those cross breed between sharia and socialism..

You are right and you are wrong. Aspects of socialism work well when implemented correctly, Saudi Arabia is a terrible implementation. Instead of encouraging people to work they pay them not to revolt.

The problem here is when we try to define ourselves by the standards of the white man. Socialism, capitalism, communism - these are their social constructs, they have created them based on their values and applied them in thier own countries and other countries they consider their dominions.

We have our own values and our own systems. We were given it 1400 years ago and it has been successful ever since (where it has been applied properly). More than 100 years after the fall of the Ottoman empire the street dogs of Istanbul bare witness to a single successful aspect of their economic model. The state leaves food for the strays, the businesses feed the strays, their stray dogs are as well fed and are more docile than most peoples prized pets.

The islamic model of economics encourages trade and business.
It discourages unfair pricing
It prohbits usury
It has a wealth tax
It has a universal income
It has regulation of the market place.

It uniquely different to all of our current models which either let the people suffer (capitalism) or the market suffer (communism).

What Bhutto did was not islamic, i'm not defending it. My point right from the word Go was that there are aspects of socialism which are very important for society, particularly the fair distribution of wealth.

Read Thomas Picketty's book Capital.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@313ghazi,

Ghazi sb,

In that case, it makes sense for Pakistan to become a truly Islamic state and not a western style democracy or communist state.

Regards

 

[313ghazi]

@313ghazi,

Ghazi sb,

In that case, it makes sense for Pakistan to become a truly Islamic state and not a western style democracy or communist state.

Regards

That's what all Muslims want, if they understand what an actual Islamic state is.

Unfortunately for as long as we've had Islam we've had poor examples of Islamic states and Islamic leadership.

I think like any system of governance - what is important is the ideals. Democracy is not implemented in the same way today as it was 200 years ago. It is not implemented in the same way on different sides of a border. An Islamic system of governance is no different.

Umar (ra) was the second Muslim Calipha (leader) and considered to have setup the model state for Muslims. During his time islamic punishments and laws were altered and suspended based on the need of society at the time (for example cutting of hands as punishment for theft was suspended during time of famine).

Our society is really suffering from a lack of identity, lack of good political leadership, lack of education and lack of good islamic leadership and scholars. All this leads to the mish mash and embaracing state we are in today.