bête noire
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2017
- Messages
- 650
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
East PK had 23% more population than West PK. And still vastly more spending on west PK by the government.I do not see any significant sign to wealth transfer.
View attachment 467918
Closer look
View attachment 467919
https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...BGD:PAK&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
The only reason East PK even had the relatively barely same or below total GDP of west PK even with more than double or triple spending in west is because of so much more population in East. Per capita BD was suffering and had way less spending per capita by the government than the already abysmally low overall amount. More population yet less than half or 1/3rd spending meant per capita BD got nothing!