What's new

India to Borrow and Spend More in 2010-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any src?:blink: Doese this just exist in your dream?
Look, I'm not liable to prove anything.

People, go visit his profile. Even the a senior pak member has warned him by saying
"You and a few other Chinese members have definitely cross the line when it comes to racism. I routinely get complaints from you guys about Indians calling you chinks and yellow, which I agree is offensive. But then you should also stick to the topic and not go around bringing some statistical IQ report in every other post. ONLY talk about the topic, not about Indian posters here. Only talk about issues related to the forum, not about India's internal social problems."

And Man, to you, since you asked me, go and check your comments for the thread "in 5 years … people forget about Shanghai...and talk Mumbai..."

And Listen up, Indians always consider Chinese as rivals but never hate them rather like the way they are. But on the other hand, you (thank god, but not that most chinese) consider us as rival and also hate us.

Keep doing it and dig your grave. Good bye
 
Look, I'm not liable to prove anything.

People, go visit his profile. Even the a senior pak member has warned him by saying
"You and a few other Chinese members have definitely cross the line when it comes to racism. I routinely get complaints from you guys about Indians calling you chinks and yellow, which I agree is offensive. But then you should also stick to the topic and not go around bringing some statistical IQ report in every other post. ONLY talk about the topic, not about Indian posters here. Only talk about issues related to the forum, not about India's internal social problems."

And Man, to you, since you asked me, go and check your comments for the thread "in 5 years … people forget about Shanghai...and talk Mumbai..."

And Listen up, Indians always consider Chinese as rivals but never hate them rather like the way they are. But on the other hand, you (thank god, but not that most chinese) consider us as rival and also hate us.

Keep doing it and dig your grave. Good bye

What are you talking about?????? Are you high???
No, we chinese definately not hate india, but a bluster.:lol:
And by the way, at least I dont use the other nations flag like some indian, and I didnt get banned and change ID come here to starte trolling again. And what I said is real, your PM indeed said that, and it indeed not become to reality in 2009. Why you indian guys like denying truth even when you face the fact?
 
Last edited:
No, we chinese definately not hate india, but a bluster.:lol:

Yo, Mr. I told you that already. Chinese dont hate us. It's just you. Read my post and comment. Dont be blind.

And what I said is real, your PM indeed said that, and it indeed not become to reality in 2009. Why you indian guys like denying truth even when you face the fact?

There is no point in explaining to a wall. And when you remove all your hatered and come with open minded attitude I shall explain then. Till then, it would be a waste of time for both of us.

And by the way, at least I dont use the other nations flag like some indian, and I didnt get banned and change ID come here to starte trolling again

Well, everybody in here trust you a lot. That I know for sure. Good Luck.

Again, without any hate if you are replying we can have a conversation, else good bye. I mean it.
 
What BS..S&P rates India as BBB which translates to
"Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions"

It used to rate Pakistan as CCC which translates to
"Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments"

However in Aug 2009, IMF did a bailout for Pakistan by increasing a loan package by $3.2 billion to increase liquidity for pakistan which led to the rating being revised upward to B.
Standard & Poor’s increased Pakistan''s credit rating - GEO.tv
That translates to
"More vulnerable to adverse business, financial and economic conditions but currently has the capacity to meet financial commitments"



Haq, wouldnt it be better for you to focus on risks facing your country than the ones facing mine.??


btw, you have posted the same article in 4 different threads. Whats the point?? Amounts to trolling
..

Rating agencies' record is not good. There were a lot of very risky mortgage backed securities rated AAA before the collapse. Greece has had very high debt ratings. These things change very rapidly.

As to Pakistan vs India, it is correct that Pakistan suffered a serious liquidity crisis requiring bailout. But Pakistan's budget deficit as percent of gdp has consistently been lower than India's for a while.
 
I think we all missed the crucial fact:

-- India needs to borrow to finance its military.

In other words, they are tight on finances (aka money problems). What does this mean? It means they don't have the luxury or leverage.
 
I think we all missed the crucial fact:

-- India needs to borrow to finance its military.

In other words, they are tight on finances (aka money problems). What does this mean? It means they don't have the luxury or leverage.

Yupz thats right..we are borrowing money from all over the world for defense and world is giving us money to destroy China,..you should be very afraid :azn:


Mr.Haq you failed to answer various questions and counter various points raised by Indians here.why is that??is it means our points are correct??
 
Rating agencies' record is not good. There were a lot of very risky mortgage backed securities rated AAA before the collapse. Greece has had very high debt ratings. These things change very rapidly.

As to Pakistan vs India, it is correct that Pakistan suffered a serious liquidity crisis requiring bailout. But Pakistan's budget deficit as percent of gdp has consistently been lower than India's for a while.

Pakistan's deficit is certainly lower. And why??

Because Pakistan has been consistently taking IMF loans which restricts how much Pakistan can spend each year and to some extent on what. The future tranches of the loans are dependent on Pakistan conforming to spending as per IMF guidelines.. Hence this is a discipline enforced externally and not thru good fiscal policies. And that discipline like any external constraint hurts the poor of your country the most...

To quote from one of your own blogs

IMF's Tough Conditions:

1. Pakistan's central bank must tighten money supply. In order to pave the way for the IMF loan, Pakistan's central bank raised its bank lending rate in early November by 2 percentage points to 15 percent and the state bank has let it be known that a further 1.5 percentage point hike will be implemented in January. The justification for such high interest rates is the high inflation rate in excess of 20% in Pakistan, mainly due to high food and energy prices. Removal of subsidies is making it worse, in spite of declining world oil prices. Tighter money supply will almost certainly hurt businesses, consumers and overall employment, forcing a major recession. According to an Asia Times Online report, Anjum Nisar, the president of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has said, "Pakistan's industrial landscape may soon be marked with dead and sick units and there will be massive unemployment because of the devastating impact on businesses of the higher cost of bank loans arising from the interest rate increase." The liquidity crunch resulting from IMF's tough conditions will turn the already precarious situation of Pakistan's poor daily wage earners into a disaster. Increase in hunger and poverty will hurt Pakistani government's ability to fight Islamist insurgency and maintain peace and stability.

2. Pakistan government must cut spending and raise taxes. The IMF economic stabilization package calls for the government's annual budget deficit to "be reduced from 7.4 percent of GDP in 2007/2008 (July-June) to 4.2 percent in 2008/2009 and 3.3 percent in 2009/2010." The IMF added, "This fiscal adjustment will be achieved primarily by phasing out energy subsidies, better prioritizing development spending, and implementing strong tax policy and administration measures." This condition will also lead to a deep and prolonged recession in Pakistan.

3. The IMF wants Pakistan to raise tax revenue from the present 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 15 percent by 2013. Neighboring India's total tax revenue, including levies on income, imports and sales, also amounts to less than 10 percent of GDP now. In China, the figure is 20 percent, and among the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development it averaged 37 percent in 2001. As part of a plan to increase tax revenue, the IMF is pressing Pakistan for the introduction of a tax on agricultural income. Pakistan's large landowners have tenaciously resisted such proposals in the past. Should Islamabad ultimately impose a tax on agricultural income, it will only be after a bitter struggle within the Pakistani feudal ruling class over how to design it to be regressive to make small producers bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

4. IMF does not require defense spending cuts, further exacerbating the economic impact on ordinary citizens. The IMF, which is controlled by the US and other western powers, made no demands for cuts to Pakistan's massive military budget. Juan Carlos Di Tata, IMF senior special adviser for the Middle East and Central Asia, expressed concern about the rise in Pakistan's defense spending, but then added that the question of Pakistan's military expenditure had been excluded from the bank's negotiations with the country's Pakistan People's Party-led coalition government. "The issue of defense spending was not discussed during the program negotiations," said Di Tata. "Defense spending is basically an item that was determined by the government and included in the budget projections for this fiscal year. There was no discussion of this topic."

What's Next:

According to the IMF, even after last month's IMF loan, Pakistan will need another $20 billion "to get control over its imbalances." The FOP are scheduled to meet January 13-16 to decide on additional non-IMF assistance to Pakistan. Most likely, they will want IMF to continue supervising Pakistan's economy as a condition for their assistance.

While the US economic revival is planned with multiple stimulus packages, near-zero interest rates and tax cuts to increase liquidity for government, business and consumer spending, it seems the IMF prescription for Pakistan is quite the reverse. It is a basic economic fact that raising taxes does not increase revenue during a slowdown. Rather than close the budget gap, attempts to raise revenue cause a downward economic spiral. Instead of softening the impact on businesses and consumers, the austerity measures will clearly hurt the average and poor Pakistanis disproportionately and cause a great deal of suffering leading to greater political instability in the country. An unstable Pakistan is in no one's interest. But,what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander, according to the IMF's perverse logic
 
Pakistan's deficit is certainly lower. And why??

Because Pakistan has been consistently taking IMF loans which restricts how much Pakistan can spend each year and to some extent on what. The future tranches of the loans are dependent on Pakistan conforming to spending as per IMF guidelines.. Hence this is a discipline enforced externally and not thru good fiscal policies. And that discipline like any external constraint hurts the poor of your country the most...

To quote from one of your own blogs

IMF's Tough Conditions:

1. Pakistan's central bank must tighten money supply. In order to pave the way for the IMF loan, Pakistan's central bank raised its bank lending rate in early November by 2 percentage points to 15 percent and the state bank has let it be known that a further 1.5 percentage point hike will be implemented in January. The justification for such high interest rates is the high inflation rate in excess of 20% in Pakistan, mainly due to high food and energy prices. Removal of subsidies is making it worse, in spite of declining world oil prices. Tighter money supply will almost certainly hurt businesses, consumers and overall employment, forcing a major recession. According to an Asia Times Online report, Anjum Nisar, the president of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has said, "Pakistan's industrial landscape may soon be marked with dead and sick units and there will be massive unemployment because of the devastating impact on businesses of the higher cost of bank loans arising from the interest rate increase." The liquidity crunch resulting from IMF's tough conditions will turn the already precarious situation of Pakistan's poor daily wage earners into a disaster. Increase in hunger and poverty will hurt Pakistani government's ability to fight Islamist insurgency and maintain peace and stability.

2. Pakistan government must cut spending and raise taxes. The IMF economic stabilization package calls for the government's annual budget deficit to "be reduced from 7.4 percent of GDP in 2007/2008 (July-June) to 4.2 percent in 2008/2009 and 3.3 percent in 2009/2010." The IMF added, "This fiscal adjustment will be achieved primarily by phasing out energy subsidies, better prioritizing development spending, and implementing strong tax policy and administration measures." This condition will also lead to a deep and prolonged recession in Pakistan.

3. The IMF wants Pakistan to raise tax revenue from the present 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 15 percent by 2013. Neighboring India's total tax revenue, including levies on income, imports and sales, also amounts to less than 10 percent of GDP now. In China, the figure is 20 percent, and among the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development it averaged 37 percent in 2001. As part of a plan to increase tax revenue, the IMF is pressing Pakistan for the introduction of a tax on agricultural income. Pakistan's large landowners have tenaciously resisted such proposals in the past. Should Islamabad ultimately impose a tax on agricultural income, it will only be after a bitter struggle within the Pakistani feudal ruling class over how to design it to be regressive to make small producers bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

4. IMF does not require defense spending cuts, further exacerbating the economic impact on ordinary citizens. The IMF, which is controlled by the US and other western powers, made no demands for cuts to Pakistan's massive military budget. Juan Carlos Di Tata, IMF senior special adviser for the Middle East and Central Asia, expressed concern about the rise in Pakistan's defense spending, but then added that the question of Pakistan's military expenditure had been excluded from the bank's negotiations with the country's Pakistan People's Party-led coalition government. "The issue of defense spending was not discussed during the program negotiations," said Di Tata. "Defense spending is basically an item that was determined by the government and included in the budget projections for this fiscal year. There was no discussion of this topic."

What's Next:

According to the IMF, even after last month's IMF loan, Pakistan will need another $20 billion "to get control over its imbalances." The FOP are scheduled to meet January 13-16 to decide on additional non-IMF assistance to Pakistan. Most likely, they will want IMF to continue supervising Pakistan's economy as a condition for their assistance.

While the US economic revival is planned with multiple stimulus packages, near-zero interest rates and tax cuts to increase liquidity for government, business and consumer spending, it seems the IMF prescription for Pakistan is quite the reverse. It is a basic economic fact that raising taxes does not increase revenue during a slowdown. Rather than close the budget gap, attempts to raise revenue cause a downward economic spiral. Instead of softening the impact on businesses and consumers, the austerity measures will clearly hurt the average and poor Pakistanis disproportionately and cause a great deal of suffering leading to greater political instability in the country. An unstable Pakistan is in no one's interest. But,what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander, according to the IMF's perverse logic

It's true that the IMF conditions limit Pak budget deficits since 2009. But Pak budget deficits have been lower than India's for many years prior to that when Pakistan did not get any IMF help.
 
It's true that the IMF conditions limit Pak budget deficits since 2009. But Pak budget deficits have been lower than India's for many years prior to that when Pakistan did not get any IMF help.

Thats ancient history... Understand that Pakistan in 2009 needed a bailout. If your economy management was so good, why did pakistan get into that position of needing a bailout at all.


And 2009 wasnt the first year of aid for pakistan..

A Timeline of U.S. Aid to Pakistan - Newsweek.com
 
Yupz thats right..we are borrowing money from all over the world for defense and world is giving us money to destroy China,..you should be very afraid :azn:


Mr.Haq you failed to answer various questions and counter various points raised by Indians here.why is that??is it means our points are correct??


mr.haq y r u so obsessed with india..let us borrow money and go bust..u seem to be so worried abt india..i am sure u have many sleepless nights!!
 
Borrowing and aid are not necessarily bad. It depends what you do with the money.

In India's case, it refuses UNICEF aid for its severely malnourished children, while it is borrowing is to fund extraordinary increase in defense imports.

In 2009, the Indian government banned the import of Plumpy'Nut nutrient bar by UNICEF to treat moderate to severe acute malnutrition among Indian children. Defending the government action, Mr. Shreeranjan, the joint secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, told the Reuters that "Nothing should come behind our back. Nothing should be done in the name of emergency when we have not declared an emergency."

Clearly, Mr. Sheeranjan does not see the food emergency that is causing almost half of India's children to be malnourished. According to UNICEF's State of the World's Children's report carried by the BBC, India has the worst indicators of child malnutrition in South Asia: 48% of under fives in India are stunted, compared to 43% in Bangladesh and 37% in Pakistan.

Meanwhile 30% of babies in India are born underweight, compared to 22% in Bangladesh and 19% in Pakistan. UNICEF calculates that 40% of all underweight babies in the world are Indian.

Haq's Musings: Malnutrition Challenge in India, Pakistan
 
Borrowing and aid are not necessarily bad. It depends what you do with the money.

In India's case, it refuses UNICEF aid for its severely malnourished children, while it is borrowing is to fund extraordinary increase in defense imports.

In 2009, the Indian government banned the import of Plumpy'Nut nutrient bar by UNICEF to treat moderate to severe acute malnutrition among Indian children. Defending the government action, Mr. Shreeranjan, the joint secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, told the Reuters that "Nothing should come behind our back. Nothing should be done in the name of emergency when we have not declared an emergency."

Clearly, Mr. Sheeranjan does not see the food emergency that is causing almost half of India's children to be malnourished. According to UNICEF's State of the World's Children's report carried by the BBC, India has the worst indicators of child malnutrition in South Asia: 48% of under fives in India are stunted, compared to 43% in Bangladesh and 37% in Pakistan.

Meanwhile 30% of babies in India are born underweight, compared to 22% in Bangladesh and 19% in Pakistan. UNICEF calculates that 40% of all underweight babies in the world are Indian.

Haq's Musings: Malnutrition Challenge in India, Pakistan


can you provide me a link for India borrowing money for defence expenditure??India government stop receiving AID for a long time still you are twisting facts to say India is the largest AID receiver..
 
can you provide me a link for India borrowing money for defence expenditure??India government stop receiving AID for a long time still you are twisting facts to say India is the largest AID receiver..

India is receiving billions of dollars in aid and soft loans from donors such as UK and Japan, and the IFIs like the World Bank.

In addition to British aid to $500 million a year, India will remain the biggest recipient of Japan's official development assistance (ODA) in the near future. Since Japan's first ODA to India in 1958, the country has received monetary aid worth Rs 89,500 crore (Rs 895 billion) so far, according to Noro Motoyoshi, Japanese consul general in Kolkata. In 2008, Japan's ODA to India was up by more than 18% compared to 2007 at Rs 6916 crore (Rs 69.16 billion).

The World Bank said recently it will lend India $14 billion by 2012 to help the country overhaul its creaking infrastructure and increase living standards in its poor states, according to Financial Express.


Haq's Musings: Foreign Aid Continues to Pour in Resurgent India
 
India is receiving billions of dollars in aid and soft loans from donors such as UK and Japan, and the IFIs like the World Bank.

In addition to British aid to $500 million a year, India will remain the biggest recipient of Japan's official development assistance (ODA) in the near future. Since Japan's first ODA to India in 1958, the country has received monetary aid worth Rs 89,500 crore (Rs 895 billion) so far, according to Noro Motoyoshi, Japanese consul general in Kolkata. In 2008, Japan's ODA to India was up by more than 18% compared to 2007 at Rs 6916 crore (Rs 69.16 billion).

The World Bank said recently it will lend India $14 billion by 2012 to help the country overhaul its creaking infrastructure and increase living standards in its poor states, according to Financial Express.


Haq's Musings: Foreign Aid Continues to Pour in Resurgent India

Great where are you going with twisting the facts Riaz?most of them are loans which we have to pay it back with interest not AID..as for British AID..can you tell me if its Indian government or NGOs who are the receiving the AID??nice way of trying to twist loan as AID so that you can say we are getting more AID than Pakistan..you are incredible man..
 
Great where are you going with twisting the facts Riaz?most of them are loans which we have to pay it back with interest not AID..as for British AID..can you tell me if its Indian government or NGOs who are the receiving the AID??nice way of trying to twist loan as AID so that you can say we are getting more AID than Pakistan..you are incredible man..

There are billions of dollars in grants and soft loans on easy terms given to India each year...both are classified as aid. It's no different than aid to Pakistan or any other country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom