Iran a country with sanction has a higher GDP than Pakistan

[foxbat]

It's not just spending on the war. Estimated loss is 50-80b, which includes spending on the war, decreased FDI, loss of economic growth due to WoT, infrastructure damage, major decline in tourists, etc.

Pakistan was growing around 5-9% before 2008. After that, growth dropped to 2-4%.

The whole spoof of Pakistan economy growing at 7% before WOT is all hog wash. After 1992, when the GDP growth rate touched 7.7%, it was a downwar trend till 2001 when it hit the bottom of 2%. Post 9/11 when the America got pulled in to Afghanistan and the WOT started, there was a brief period of 2-3 years when Pakistani economy got a stimulus of war economy from USA and the economy went up for next 3 years hitting a peak of 7.7% in 2005. Post that the effects of stimuls started waning and its been down hill since then.

In short, from 1993 to today (17 years), there have been only 2 year (2004 and 2005) when Pakistani economy grew by 7% or more.

Google - public data

.........................

 

[mjnaushad]

Do you even know how big a range 5-9% of growth for a GDP is?
pakistan grew 4-5% at max.
Provide me any link to prove my statement wrong.
In 2008 Pakistani economy grew at 2%...
pakistan gdp growth rate - Google Search
And for present,a decline rate rather than a growth rate has been predicted for Pak's economy.

And just imagine if there were no WOT.

 

[foxbat]

^ Link please..

Actually, If there was no WOT starting 2002, the recovery that was shown in 2002-2005 wouldnt have happened. DO look at Pakistan's GDP spiral after 1992

 

[foxbat]

I thought a picture would be clearer

Actually the Pakistan GDP growth is back to what it was in 2000-2001 before the war in Afghanistan started. I think its more to do with the stimulus of war economy wearing off than WOT causing a downturn in Pakistan's economy.

 

[All-Green]

You don't have trillions to begin with

I would also like an explanation as to what are the expenses for this 'war on terror' that Pakistan is supposedly fighting. If we carefully examine the cost of the US wars it can be broken down to active deployed troops, medial treatment for troops, transportation of troops via aircraft or other means, fuel for tanks, trucks, aircraft ect, expenditure of weapons this includes everything from guided weapons to 5.56 rounds, loss of equipment due to accident and hostile fire, private subcontractors for both special operations and construction as well as repair and the list goes on....

What has Pakistan done besides sent some troops near the Afghan border? Are people supposed to believe that sending troops near the Afghan border is going to cost trillions or billions? Even if we assume that the cost of this 'war on terror' will exceed military expenditures the US is providing Pakistan with billions, which should cover the cost of stationing soldiers near the Afghan border or combating demestic terror.

Don't forget the Pakistan government dooped the US for cash during the Soviet afghan war, what makes you think that the same is not happening, in other words, the expenditure for Pakistan's 'war on terror' is grossly over exaggerated.

You care to think about the economic implications of such a bloody war before shooting out such statements?

I hope you are aware that there are thousands of men in uniform and thousands of civilians who have been killed because of this war, quite clearly the casualties reflect clearly that it is not a matter of 2-3 companies stationed at Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Pakistan is using artillery, armor, helicopters and aircraft extensively in this area.
All sorts of precision munitions at our disposal are being used in this war.
We have had to deploy field hospitals and camps for both the troops and people who have to evacuate the towns and cities infested with militants and terrorists.

Despite the tremendous amount of military expenditure which is required to maintain this operation, you think Pakistan is exaggerating here?
I think you are not completely aware of the number of troops involved nor the area in which Army and Air force is operating, otherwise you would not be under the illusion that we have just sent some troops to the Pak-Afghan border.

However moving on, the right term would be cost (direct and indirect) and not just expenditure.

Certainly the cost has been too much since the war on terror has brought the terrorists/militants into mainland Pakistan where they have taken a deadly toll on the country not just in terms of lives but in terms of halting investments in Pakistani economy as a result of security concerns.
Many businesses have packed up and gone away, people are investing in foreign lands, large companies operating in Pakistan currently do so at bare minimum growth plans and abhor Capex injection till the situation settles down etc.

The net effect is Pakistan hitting absolute rock bottom in terms of foreign investments and local business/industrial growth.

Much of this indirect cost is non military in nature but has direct consequences on both military and non military matters.

 

[SMC]

.........................

I am talking about the period after 9/11. Pakistan hit a peak of almost 9% in 2005, not 7.7%. And oh yeah, $1 billion per year in aid (half of which was probably military aid) was enough to bring the growth rate from 2% to upto 9%.. FDI (8 billion at peak), lifting of sanctions, record-shattering stock market, exports nearly tripling was nothing. Get real man. I know it's hard for you bhartis to digest that Pakistan can indeed post very good growth rate without the typical aid **** that you pull up, but it's only being in denial if you do that.

And the overall point that you miss is that whether we had growth rate of 9%, or 8%, or 7%, or 6% , at least we had good decent growth rate and had some stability. WoT has messed up all of that.

 

[somebozo]

it is less to blame on wot and more on the corrupt government which had made all Pakistanis to pull their investments out, outflow of forigen investment and general atmosphere of business uncertainity as well rampany corruption, power shortage and poor infrastructure !

 

[mjnaushad]

^ Link please..

Actually, If there was no WOT starting 2002, the recovery that was shown in 2002-2005 wouldnt have happened. DO look at Pakistan's GDP spiral after 1992

Ever heard of Wiki or this times its not credible enough for you....

 

[Kambojaric]

@Zadari's Palaces

China should start supplying some of Mao's books to Pakistan, they need a strong leftist movement

(this is not meant as some sort of sarcastic dig)

Ironic thing is that PPP was supposed to be exactly that, Slogan of Bhutto was "roti, kapra, mukan".

 

[foxbat]

I am talking about the period after 9/11. Pakistan hit a peak of almost 9% in 2005, not 7.7%. And oh yeah, $1 billion per year in aid (half of which was probably military aid) was enough to bring the growth rate from 2% to upto 9%.. FDI (8 billion at peak), lifting of sanctions, record-shattering stock market, exports nearly tripling was nothing. Get real man. I know it's hard for you bhartis to digest that Pakistan can indeed post very good growth rate without the typical aid **** that you pull up, but it's only being in denial if you do that.

And the overall point that you miss is that whether we had growth rate of 9%, or 8%, or 7%, or 6% , at least we had good decent growth rate and had some stability. WoT has messed up all of that.

I dont know what source of GDP growth rate are you looking at, but if you look at the Google Public data which charts data from world bank source (which I would trust over State bank of Pakistan any day), in last 17 years, Pakistan's GDP has crossed 7% mark only twice and has never ever crossed 8% in those 17 years.

Also, where did I use the word aid in my post. Was it a Freudian slip on your part? I said war economy.. which includes lifting of sanctions, increased trade with the west and west opening up its markets to you in exchange of help in wot.

If you have some background in technical analysis, you will see that in last 17 years, Pakistan has had only 3-4 years in which it was not in a downward trend in terms of GDP growth rate and those were between 2002 to 2005 which I believe was a result of USA embracing Pakistan for help in WOT. But that jump could only last for so long. Now that the impact is wearing off, Pakistan is back to 3-5 % growth rate which has been the story since 1993

 

[foxbat]

Ever heard of Wiki or this times its not credible enough for you....

1st of all the wiki link was not visible in the post. secondly, the source is State Bank of Pakistan and not Wiki

 

[foxbat]

And just imagine if there were no WOT.

Yeah! These numbers are not accurate. They dont seem to be inflation adjusted..

 

[FreekiN]

WRONG.

Pakistan's war on terror started in mid 2005. Musharraf's tiny operations don't count.

 

[foxbat]

WRONG.

Pakistan's war on terror started in mid 2005. Musharraf's tiny operations don't count.

My friend (if you allow me the privilage), the same tiny operation got Pakistan out of the economic mess it was in since it got rid of sanctions and opened the west markets to you. That is what pushed the economy out of the downward spiral. Also a lot of members here blame the subsequent drop on the democratic govt, but if you see the charts, the drop began in 2005 and by the time the new govt came in, the situation was down to 2% growth rate of GDP. Actually, today, the GDP growth rate of Pakistan is better than what it was at the time of Musharraf's exit.

I really dont understand the halo effect around musharraf. He left the country in a worse shape than what it is now..

 

[The Clarifier]

^

Irrelevant.

The economic drop started when we got involved in WoT, Mush or no Mush.