Iran a country with sanction has a higher GDP than Pakistan

[foxbat]

^

Irrelevant.

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

^Incorrect from a causation perspective. Corelation, may be.. But the real involvement of Pakistan began in 2001 end. 2005 was more of Pakistan's internal operations to stamp out the terrorists targeting Pakistan itself.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

what a strange topic; Iran is sitting on the world's 5th largest reserves of petroleum, 2nd largest reserves of natural gas

refining infra. is not good (they need to import refined) but they are still very much resource endowed.


Iran is also a much more matured country than Pakistan; govt. seems to have good domestic policies to promote strong local industry. Of course the sanctions and embargos are making it difficult for Iran to export or do business with other more developed countries --though they do cleverly use Dubai and Bahrain financial institutions to get around


bottom line is, its silly to compare Iran to Pakistan. Pakistan's economy is at its worst point in years, mainly due to mismanagement, gross (criminal) incompetence, and corruption

with 180 million people (many of them young, as is the case with Iran), and so many resources, no reason why it should be this way.....Perhaps Iranians are also more responsible and pay their Goddam taxes

 

[SMC]

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.

It went up to 9%. And that's from SBP. I don't care if you trust WB over SBP. That's irrelevant to the main point. The main point was we were growing quite nicely. A decrease of 0.25% or something from 2005 to 2006 doesn't really matter. It's the significant decrease from 2007 to 2008.

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.

That's not war economy. War economy is when war is running the economy pretty much. Lifting of sanctions, increased trade happened due to WoT, but WoT wasn't running the economy. You can see by the fact that despite the WoT is going on and in fact has gone up, economy is not in a great which makes it obvious that it's a war economy. War opened up things, but it's not a war economy.

As far as the downward trend you mentioned, look at the chart you gave. What about the trend from 1997-2000? It's not a huge increase, but makes your statement false nonetheless.

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

Since 1993, we were in sanctions until 2001. So ignore that period. Pakistan is back to 3-5% because of WoT. In particular, WoT really took off in 2008 when bomb blasts become significantly more frequent. Before that, they were in-frequent. That's what we mean when we say WoT is causing problems. By WoT, we mean the increase in bomb blasts since 2008. Not since 2001.

The point is, when this WoT stops and the current govt goes, and assuming we don't have sanctions on us again, then our growth rate will easily go back up to 6-9%. Because it was sanctions before that were keeping us down, and now it's WoT and the thugs in power.

 

[SMC]

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

Are you kidding me? Something sounds completely wrong with this statement.

Hmm, economy size nearly tripling, stocks reaching new records, poverty being halved, FDI reaching a peak of 8B. Pakistan was in better shape back 2 years ago than today.

 

[SMC]

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.

It started dropping in 2005 but the drops were a mere 0.5 or 1%. From 2007 to 2008 it dropped 4%. Due to what? The WoT. The WoT taking off. And the election of the corrupt thugs. Not because of Musharraf's fault.

Actually, today, the GDP growth rate of Pakistan is better than what it was at the time of Musharraf's exit.

So the rest of the growth during his tenure was irrelevant? Only counting his last year, where circumstances were quite different due to WoT, global economic and oil cruch, PPP, etc.

 

[foxbat]

It went up to 9%. And that's from SBP. I don't care if you trust WB over SBP. That's irrelevant to the main point. The main point was we were growing quite nicely. A decrease of 0.25% or something from 2005 to 2006 doesn't really matter. It's the significant decrease from 2007 to 2008.

In last 18 years, Pakistan has never touched a GDP growth rate of 9%. Attaching the World Bank link below
GDP growth (annual %) | Data | Table

Obviously there was a substantial decrease from 2007 to 2008. The whole world's GDP went for a toss in 2008. Cant blame that on democracy or WOT

That's not war economy. War economy is when war is running the economy pretty much. Lifting of sanctions, increased trade happened due to WoT, but WoT wasn't running the economy. You can see by the fact that despite the WoT is going on and in fact has gone up, economy is not in a great which makes it obvious that it's a war economy. War opened up things, but it's not a war economy.

Thats just nomenclature. Call it economy impact of War if that makes you comfortable, but it was the WOT that allowed Pakistan to open up its economy and recover temporarily from the downward trend going on since 1993. As a matter of fact, the 9/11 impact turned out pretty good for Pakistan.

As far as the downward trend you mentioned, look at the chart you gave. What about the trend from 1997-2000? It's not a huge increase, but makes your statement false nonetheless.

It doesnt. Thats why I said.. If you have background in Technical analysis. A downward trend is defined by successive lower peaks made by the trend line. In this case in the years 1992 (7.7), 1995(5.4), 2000 (4.1). If you see, even the run up from 1997 to 2000 could not breach the previous peak of 1995 which was at 5.4 and hence the downward trend continued. This trend got broken in 2005 when the peak of 7.7 overshot the previous peak of 4.1 (2000).

Since 1993, we were in sanctions until 2001. So ignore that period. Pakistan is back to 3-5% because of WoT. In particular, WoT really took off in 2008 when bomb blasts become significantly more frequent. Before that, they were in-frequent. That's what we mean when we say WoT is causing problems. By WoT, we mean the increase in bomb blasts since 2008. Not since 2001.

1993? I thought it was 1998 when India and Pakistan conducted Nuclear tests. And Pakistan actually 1998 to 2000 is an upward trend in the GDP. So the sanctions logic is pretty much a bogeyman. Isnt it?

Also, you are looking at WOT from a selective prism. You are ok counting in the positive effect of WOT from 2000 to 2005, but want to leave out the negative effect (if any) of that WOT from 2005 onwards. If you totally discount WOT period from 2000 then the GDP growth rate in 2009 is more or less same as the rate was in 1999-2000. So in my view the whole thing just evened itself out. In 2000, support of America gave a big push to the economy, but Pakistan failed to significantly capitalize and the momentum waned off in 2005 from where the downward spiral started again.

The point is, when this WoT stops and the current govt goes, and assuming we don't have sanctions on us again, then our growth rate will easily go back up to 6-9%. Because it was sanctions before that were keeping us down, and now it's WoT and the thugs in power.

I wish you luck for that, but I believe the lower GDP is more a factor of army controlled political system in Pakistan and not the timely excuses of sanctions first and WOT later. Because the downward trend began in 1993 and not 1998 (when sanctions were levied). So unless that goes away, I dont belive things will change much..

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Oil money ?

 

[foxbat]

Are you kidding me? Something sounds completely wrong with this statement.

Hmm, economy size nearly tripling, stocks reaching new records, poverty being halved, FDI reaching a peak of 8B. Pakistan was in better shape back 2 years ago than today.

Musharraf assumed control in 1999 and left in 2008. During his tenure, the gdp grew at an average of 4.7%. I dont know where you got the figure of tripling, but based on numbers, Pakistan real GDP GDP just grew by a total of 55% in 9 years under his rule. . And mind you, when you look at GDP, the real GDP has to be inflation adjusted, otherwise it has no meaning. And thats why the data posted by SBP while looking good is far from reality since Pakistan has been living with a double digit inflation during most of Musharraf's rule. There is an interesting read in Dawn that talks about the over all trends in Pakistan's economy. The WOT and Musharraf are not even a couple of blips in the over all trend.

Pakistan needs 159 years to catch up with industrialised world -DAWN - Top Stories; May 27, 2008

 

[foxbat]

It started dropping in 2005 but the drops were a mere 0.5 or 1%. From 2007 to 2008 it dropped 4%. Due to what? The WoT. The WoT taking off. And the election of the corrupt thugs. Not because of Musharraf's fault.

So the rest of the growth during his tenure was irrelevant? Only counting his last year, where circumstances were quite different due to WoT, global economic and oil cruch, PPP, etc.

You do realize that from 2007 to 2008, the growth rate of World GDP became less than 50%. Every single contry in the world had a significant drop in GDP growth rate from 2007 to 2008.. Including India and China. India dropped from 9.6 to 5.7. That year was a special situation. But in Pakistan, the economy was on a downward trend from 2005. That trend was even more significant since from 2005 to 2007, the GDP growth of the world and the region (including India and China) was on an unswing.

 

[SMC]

In last 18 years, Pakistan has never touched a GDP growth rate of 9%. Attaching the World Bank link below
GDP growth (annual %) | Data | Table

Obviously there was a substantial decrease from 2007 to 2008. The whole world's GDP went for a toss in 2008. Cant blame that on democracy or WOT

Like I said, it doesn't matter whether it was 9% or whether it was 7.7%. You're concentrating on very small things and not looking at the big picture. The point was, we had decent growth.

Thats just nomenclature. Call it economy impact of War if that makes you comfortable, but it was the WOT that allowed Pakistan to open up its economy and recover temporarily from the downward trend going on since 1993. As a matter of fact, the 9/11 impact turned out pretty good for Pakistan.

So what are you trying to conclude from the above statements? That since Pakistan's economy opened up due WoT, then .... ? Keep in mind, India also had sanctions lifted after WoT. And their relations also got much better with US.

1993? I thought it was 1998 when India and Pakistan conducted Nuclear tests. And Pakistan actually 1998 to 2000 is an upward trend in the GDP. So the sanctions logic is pretty much a bogeyman. Isnt it?

It very much isn't. How much was the increase from 1998 to 2000? The fact that military came in meant that we had some stability was probably what caused the small increase. It was the lifting sanctions that allowed us to increase again more significantly.

Also, you are looking at WOT from a selective prism. You are ok counting in the positive effect of WOT from 2000 to 2005, but want to leave out the negative effect (if any) of that WOT from 2005 onwards. If you totally discount WOT period from 2000 then the GDP growth rate in 2009 is more or less same as the rate was in 1999-2000. So in my view the whole thing just evened itself out. In 2000, support of America gave a big push to the economy, but Pakistan failed to significantly capitalize and the momentum waned off in 2005 from where the downward spiral started again.

Again, it's not 2005 where the problem started, it's 2008. A decrease of 0.5% or 1% from 2005-2007 is not that important. The significant decrease from 2007 to 2008 is important. That's when bomb blasts increased significantly. I repeat (I have said this several times), the problem started in 2008, not 2005.

WoT initially helped us, but now it's cause a lot of bomb blasts (since 2008), hence the problem due to it.

I wish you luck for that, but I believe the lower GDP is more a factor of army controlled political system in Pakistan and not the timely excuses of sanctions first and WOT later. Because the downward trend began in 1993 and not 1998 (when sanctions were levied). So unless that goes away, I dont belive things will change much..

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't US put sanctions sometime during early 90s (possibly 1993 or 1994) due to the our support for Taliban? This was what I was lead to believe by some other Pakistani economic analysts.

 

[SMC]

Musharraf assumed control in 1999 and left in 2008. During his tenure, the gdp grew at an average of 4.7%. I dont know where you got the figure of tripling, but based on numbers, Pakistan real GDP GDP just grew by a total of 55% in 9 years under his rule. . And mind you, when you look at GDP, the real GDP has to be inflation adjusted, otherwise it has no meaning. And thats why the data posted by SBP while looking good is far from reality since Pakistan has been living with a double digit inflation during most of Musharraf's rule. There is an interesting read in Dawn that talks about the over all trends in Pakistan's economy. The WOT and Musharraf are not even a couple of blips in the over all trend.

Pakistan needs 159 years to catch up with industrialised world -DAWN - Top Stories; May 27, 2008

When he came in, I believe GDP was $60 billion. When he left, it was around $160 billion. Maybe not technically tripling, but it's an increase of around 2.7x. Something similar increase in GDP per capita.

I am trying to find out a source for real GDP growth. All I am coming across is the unadjusted figures. Perhaps you can find one?

And I mean, does it really matter whether the growth rate was 9% or 7.7% in 2005? Point was, until WoT really took off, we had decent growth rates.

 

[SMC]

You do realize that from 2007 to 2008, the growth rate of World GDP became less than 50%. Every single contry in the world had a significant drop in GDP growth rate from 2007 to 2008.. Including India and China. India dropped from 9.6 to 5.7. That year was a special situation. But in Pakistan, the economy was on a downward trend from 2005. That trend was even more significant since from 2005 to 2007, the GDP growth of the world and the region (including India and China) was on an unswing.

It dropped what, 0.5% to 1% from 2005 - 2007? Look, no offense but you seem to be more interested in things that are not that important since a decrease from 7.7% to 7% is still not bad. Yes, in 2008 world economy dropped, but it's still continuing for us, mainly because of WoT.

 

[foxbat]

Like I said, it doesn't matter whether it was 9% or whether it was 7.7%. You're concentrating on very small things and not looking at the big picture. The point was, we had decent growth.

Actually thats the point I am making. Post inflation adjustment, the trend in growth drop for Pakistan began in 1993 and is still continuing.

So what are you trying to conclude from the above statements? That since Pakistan's economy opened up due WoT, then .... ? Keep in mind, India also had sanctions lifted after WoT. And their relations also got much better with US.

True, but if you see the same graph for India, unlike Pakistan, the trend in last 2 decades was not downward and is more flattish with an upward bias. And lifting of sanctions in 2001-2002 definitely played its part.

It very much isn't. How much was the increase from 1998 to 2000? The fact that military came in meant that we had some stability was probably what caused the small increase. It was the lifting sanctions that allowed us to increase again more significantly.

Military came in during Oct 1999 so had no impact on the GDP growth of 1998 and 1999. The GDP rate increased .6% from 1999 to 2000. I dont know whether the increase was significant enough to be attributed to military rule.. Considering the growth rate increased by 1.1 from 1998 to 1999

Again, it's not 2005 where the problem started, it's 2008. A decrease of 0.5% or 1% from 2005-2007 is not that important. The significant decrease from 2007 to 2008 is important. That's when bomb blasts increased significantly. I repeat (I have said this several times), the problem started in 2008, not 2005.

2% drop fro 2005 to 2007. Not insignificant by any measures. The drop in 2008 is driven by the world wide recession and not Bomb blasts. The situation in 2009 was even worse but the GDP was better. That kind of refutes the WOT arguement.

 

[foxbat]

When he came in, I believe GDP was $60 billion. When he left, it was around $160 billion. Maybe not technically tripling, but it's an increase of around 2.7x. Something similar increase in GDP per capita.

I am trying to find out a source for real GDP growth. All I am coming across is the unadjusted figures. Perhaps you can find one?

And I mean, does it really matter whether the growth rate was 9% or 7.7% in 2005? Point was, until WoT really took off, we had decent growth rates.

the 2.7x is not adjusted for inflation. For real GDP growth, you can look up the link that I provided. That gives year on year growth rate post inflation adjustment. You can use those %ages along with the base GDP value in 1999 to come to what would be the inflation adjusted GDP val in 2008 when Musharraf left. Thats how the figure of 55% comes

Google - public data

Actually if you read my previous post you will see that the point I am making is that the trend from 1993 itself was downward and not after 2005 only. Its just that from 2002 to 2005 there was a burst of growth driven by Musharraf's joining with USA against Taliban. So if for the sake of arguement you remove those 4 years and plot the chart from 1993 to 2010, you will see a continuous downward trend till 2009

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

It dropped what, 0.5% to 1% from 2005 - 2007? Look, no offense but you seem to be more interested in things that are not that important since a decrease from 7.7% to 7% is still not bad. Yes, in 2008 world economy dropped, but it's still continuing for us, mainly because of WoT.

SMC, it dropped from 7.7% to 5.7% in 2 years. That by no margin is a small drop, considering the world economy and the region economy was on an upswing in those 2 years.

Also, most of the world is still hasnt recovered from the recession of 2008. Most of the weaker economies are still struggling, including Pakistan and a lot of europe. China and India are some of the economies in the region that have come out of the impact. Thats why its still continuing for Pakistan..

 

[srsrsr]

Do you know how many Pakistani troops died in this War on Terror?
count the number and you will now we are not only sending our troops to Afghan borders but actually fighting against them in tribal areas... and that cost big money.... Only swat operation displaced two million peoples (and providing them food, rehabilitation, paying the cost of damage, property loss, physical loss etc cost big money) and start counting the number of battles we had i.e. Operation Zalzala, Bajaur operation, South Waziristan operation, tensions in North Waziristan, Orakzai and Khurram Agency operations etc

Its a long list.... and all these operations cost big money... thousands of Pakistani civilian and Army men has already died and you are asking about what Pakistan has done besides sending troops to Afghan Border

Time and again this arguement pops up. Clearly make a decision what you are doing.

Are you fighting US' war? If yes, then its purely a business and you start calculating the losses and demand the chq from US. Come up with $ figure for every soldier, civilian, battle and get it from US. [ Dont see anyone blocking/shouting whenever aid is announced. You accept whatever is thrown by US with glee]

Are you fighting your war ( against terrorists) ? If yes, obviously you need to pay your loss, unless you are OK with keeping terrorists in your country. Every country spends money to get rid of them and dont think Pak wants to go soft on this.

Decide for yourself.

Iran has shown lot of dignity and appreciate it for the fact, it has guts to stand against US and not being its *****. [Cuba is another favorite]