Musharraf Ki Yaad AAyi Us Kay Janay Kay Baad

[sparklingway]

All I can say is, ignorance is bliss.

Indeed ignorance is a bliss. My salutes:-

Not only does the income disparity increase, it accelerated, although the variation is highly dependent on eras. Nonetheless, it disproves your claims of improvements in income inequality.

​

Source : Hussain, Shahzad et al. "Globalization and Income Distribution: Evidence from Pakistan". European Journal of Social Sciences. Vol 8(4) : 2009

Let me continue to elaborate:-

Between 2001-02 and 2004-05 inequality increased in most of the economic sectors, i.e. Agriculture, Manufacturing, Electricity, Construction, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Community and personal services and undefined sector. These sectors employed 87.5% of all head of households in 2004-05. In general, inequality increased in economic sectors, which witnessed a high economic growth.

It looks to me as if the author is trying to say that income inequality increased in most sectors while overall profits also increased. I guess that means an exponential increase in the salaries, profits and benefits of the bourgeois, while a crushing, low production cost approach which has suppressed the working class.

Let us see further:-

The results show that consumption inequality as measured by Gini Coefficient has increased across sectors in Pakistan between 2001-02 and 2004-05 (see Table 2). Except few, most of the sectoral consumption distributions reflect an increase in inequality over the period. Financing, Mining and Transport sectors were the exception. While the Financing and Mining sectors have very small share in population, the results may be biased due to sampling error. The growth in Transport sectors was not enough compared to other sectors which observed an increase in Inequality over the period. However, inequality increased in most of the economic sectors, i.e. Agriculture, Manufacturing, Electricity, Construction, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Community and personal services and undefined sector. These sectors employed 87.5% of all head of households in 2004-05.

​

Conclusion from paper:

The paper examined level as well as the changes in sectoral inequality in Pakistan using two most recent household surveys data for 2001-02 and 2004-05. The results suggest the Financing sector as the most unequal distribution of consumption followed by Mining, Manufacturing sector and Community services sector. It may be noted that the household head employed in Financing sector are those working in financial institutions, insurance, real estate and business. The household head employed in Manufacturing sector comprised of those working in various industries whereas the household head employed in Community sector included of those working in mainly public administration and defense services, social and community services. It may be due to the fact that these sectors are skilled based and remuneration is generally higher in these sectors relative to others.

The results show that except few, inequality increased in most of the sectors 2001-02 and 2004-05. Financing, Mining and Transport sectors were the exception. It may be due to the fact that Financing and Mining sectors have very small share in population and the sample size is also small which may not be sufficient to capture the changes in inequality in these sectors. However, inequality increased in most of the economic sectors, i.e. Agriculture, Manufacturing, Electricity, Construction, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Community and personal services and undefined sector. These sectors employed 87.5% of all head of households in 2004-05. The higher growth in mean consumption expenditure led to a rise in inequality at sectoral level over the period. Thus, changes inequalities are consistent with growth in mean expenditure in these sectors.
It is noteworthy that inequality also increased in those sectors where most of the poor work such as Agriculture, Construction and Wholesale and Retail Trade sectors. These changes may not be pro-poor, if examines by the definition of Kakwani and Pernia (2000), and Datt and Ravallion (1992) who argue that growth is pro-poor when growth lowers inequality.

These changes are not desirable as rising inequality tend to reinforce the existing sectoral inequality and exclude the poor from opportunities that others enjoy such as a better education, access to loans, which are essential to develop their productive potentials. It is thus imperative to reduce income inequality to reduce poverty. Thus, if government aims to reduce absolute poverty via its growth accelerating strategy, it should focus primarily on policies to equalize the remuneration across sectors to reduce inequality via tax and expenditure polices which not only generate employment but also reduce poverty.

Source : Anwar, Talat. "Growth and Sectoral Inequality in Pakistan: 2001-02 to 2004-05". Pakistan Economic and Social Review . Vol. 45(2) : 2007

Now we move onto Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, our premiere institute of research in economics. Source

A very basic overview:-

​

Consumption Inequality over the years rose after '99:-

Till the mid eighties, trend in consumption inequality was same as in income inequality. After that inequality declined till 1998-99 and started increasing again to the previous level.

​

Now moving to another paper:-

​

Source : Jamal, Haroon. "Does Inequality Matter For Poverty Reduction? Evidence From Pakistan’s Poverty Trends". Social Policy and Development Centre. Research Report No.58. 2004

And these are values where poverty figures, especially of 2005, where fudged as proven conclusively by many authors. If you want evidence on that, I can bring up that as well.

You are welcome to check the sources. But, I will warn you before you make any pointless and misguided claims. Consumption and household income have increased since '99 levels, but so has the upward mobility of a large number of people. This makes it impossible for a larger number of people to live within their means. Overall as numerous sources have stated, income inequality has risen. And I have to premeditate again and tell you that I do not hold the opinion that somehow the '90s was a time of economic prosperity but the years '00 - '06 brought devastation to our economy for it has eaten our economic and financial structure like termites. I haven't even gone into a deep academic research, just basic Google searches. Give me a couple of days over the summers and I'm pretty sure I'll gather a book load of data to support my claims.

As I have said earlier, growth in the services sector is not pro-poor and without creating jobs, creates an economic bubble where an ever decreasing proportion of the population amasses wealth. In the words of the noted economist Kaiser Bengali, "in the period when the agriculture sector grew by 1.5 percent and the banking sector grew by 30 percent ….. this was jobless growth". I have pointed out to you time and again that the people who were hovering around the fringes of the upper middle class managed to enter the upper middle class but the proletariat and working class faced increasing pressures for they were not employed by banks, investment firms or insurance companies, who were able to monopolize and cartelize under the watchful eye of their friend Shaukat Aziz.

You choose to read Dr. Ashfaque Ahmed, Dr. Ishrat Hussain, Dr. Salman Shah and their likes. I tend to read them but agree with Dr. Meekal Aziz, Dr. Kaiser Bengali, Dr. Ali Cheema and their likes. One group focuses solely on Import substitution industrialization (ISI), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Real GDP growth rates. The other divides sectorially to examine that the agricultural sector witnessed staganancy, consumer financing was the key to the "success", financial sector returned record profits, investment was inefficient (tax waivers, one-door policies for foreign firms, subsidies, protection from labour market through anti-union laws etc.)

Having socialist leanings, I reject the idea of "trickle down effect" for I am convinced through extensive study that the "trickle down effect" never takes place and while capitalistic economies focused on such a role have provided ever rising living standards, they inherently promotes a rule of the elite and this in turn allows them to exploit the masses. Marx and Engel never argued that it was impossible for living standards to improve under capitalism but that economic and social crises can never be indefinitely postponed under such an economic system.

Try to move beyond rhetoric, simplistic analysis, elite view of economic growth and look at structural changes rather than import oriented improvements. I did not imagine that I would ever convince somebody with an avatar of Pervez Musharraf, but I find it difficult to believe that people can be so elitist that they are willing to crush the larger percentage of people, so that they can move in their cars in the big cities.

 

[sparklingway]

z9-ec, you have again chosen to falsify TI's data about corruption. Mush supporters trying to defend the shameful act of trampling the judiciary in anticipation of unfavourable judgments, arresting and locking judges and imposing martial law on his own government time and again have tried to twist data from TI's NCPS.

You always try to potray that Judiciary being "among top 10 corrupt" while the reality is that TI only surveys 10 select public sector departments because of their importance. I stated this earlier and will state it again:-

They carry out the survey about 10, precisely ten public sectors. If a public sector is at number 10 it means that it is the least corrupt among these public sectors, not among all of them. 10 specific because TI recognizes them as important to public dealing.

I proved this to you earlier as well, but choose to twist and fudge facts because they suit you and you have to defend indefensible criminal acts.

​

I posted this earlier and will post again:-

Does it say these are the ten most corrupt? Is TI bonkers and assumes that these are automatically the ten most corrupt sectors?

No. They take ten specific sectors because of their importance and rank among them. Next time, check facts and sources and don't lie again.

Judiciary has improved its rankings considerably :-

​

Source : http://www.transparency.org.pk/documents/NCPS%202009/NCPS 2009 Report.pdf

Moving down to 7th is a big step forward and a clear indication of the people's trust in the courts. Also, tendering and Customs are the two sectors where the least percentage of people have daily or any association with. The average person has to deal with the police, health departments and judiciary far more than customs or be involved in tendering. Customs and tendering are frequented sectors by a very small percentage.

Judiciary's ranking has improved amazingly since the revival of the judiciary after the lawyer's movement. It has to be acknowledged that lower courts still are marred by corruption and the NJP 2009 under the NJPMC is working towards improving it. The speed of civil litigation has improved considerably and the high courts worked extra hours (4-9pm) on select days over the past year to complete more than ten thousand cases that had been languishing for years. We will most likely see improvement in upcoming years as well. Computerization of cause lists and case status reports for district courts is under way and will help towards speeding up the justice system. Moreover, the judicial system is undergoing further improvement through extended education for new judges and the digitization of high court and supreme court judgments of the past two decades is helping lawyers with upholding rights better.

A small portion of the lawyer community has come down to thug activities and have enforced badmashi in the lower courts, but this does not mean that the whole community is evil. They were the first and only group of people to have started and remained steadfast for a political and social cause for over two years which included hundreds of times when they were beaten like animals by state thugs and law enforcement thugs, when they were locked up, tortured and beaten by white shalwar qameez wearing state goons and two bit intelligence officers. A large group of lawyers sacrificed a lot for what they believed was right. Not being able to go to court and collect litigation fees is downright impossible for a low level family lawyer working in district courts, but many did. If a group of black coats have disgraced their profession and come down to using violence to get what they want it does not mean that the entire community is to blame.

 

[z9-ec]

z9-ec, you have again chosen to falsify TI's data about corruption. Mush supporters trying to defend the shameful act of trampling the judiciary in anticipation of unfavourable judgments, arresting and locking judges and imposing martial law on his own government time and again have tried to twist data from TI's NCPS.

You always try to potray that Judiciary being "among top 10 corrupt" while the reality is that TI only surveys 10 select public sector departments because of their importance. I stated this earlier and will state it again:-



I proved this to you earlier as well, but choose to twist and fudge facts because they suit you and you have to defend indefensible criminal acts.

​

I posted this earlier and will post again:-



Judiciary has improved its rankings considerably :-

​

Source : http://www.transparency.org.pk/documents/NCPS 2009/NCPS 2009 Report.pdf

Moving down to 7th is a big step forward and a clear indication of the people's trust in the courts. Also, tendering and Customs are the two sectors where the least percentage of people have daily or any association with. The average person has to deal with the police, health departments and judiciary far more than customs or be involved in tendering. Customs and tendering are frequented sectors by a very small percentage.

Judiciary's ranking has improved amazingly since the revival of the judiciary after the lawyer's movement. It has to be acknowledged that lower courts still are marred by corruption and the NJP 2009 under the NJPMC is working towards improving it. The speed of civil litigation has improved considerably and the high courts worked extra hours (4-9pm) on select days over the past year to complete more than ten thousand cases that had been languishing for years. We will most likely see improvement in upcoming years as well. Computerization of cause lists and case status reports for district courts is under way and will help towards speeding up the justice system. Moreover, the judicial system is undergoing further improvement through extended education for new judges and the digitization of high court and supreme court judgments of the past two decades is helping lawyers with upholding rights better.

A small portion of the lawyer community has come down to thug activities and have enforced badmashi in the lower courts, but this does not mean that the whole community is evil. They were the first and only group of people to have started and remained steadfast for a political and social cause for over two years which included hundreds of times when they were beaten like animals by state thugs and law enforcement thugs, when they were locked up, tortured and beaten by white shalwar qameez wearing state goons and two bit intelligence officers. A large group of lawyers sacrificed a lot for what they believed was right. Not being able to go to court and collect litigation fees is downright impossible for a low level family lawyer working in district courts, but many did. If a group of black coats have disgraced their profession and come down to using violence to get what they want it does not mean that the entire community is to blame.

Oh really, how conveniently you left out these parts:

 

[sparklingway]

And again you chose to ignore that people consider it far better now, not just because of the the judicial movement but because of real changes. You are adamant only because it effects the ego of the maniac who trampled the constitution and judiciary. Nonetheless, you falsified claims even after I have presented proof of you deliberate distortions.

I've maintained that lower judiciary is corrupt but the higher judiciary has set standards of competence, honesty, dedication and sweeping changes are taking place. With the passage of the Public Defender and Legal Aid Office Ordinance, 2009 things will improve further for the average person.

 

[z9-ec]

Indeed ignorance is a bliss. My salutes:-

Not only does the income disparity increase, it accelerated, although the variation is highly dependent on eras. Nonetheless, it disproves your claims of improvements in income inequality.

​

Source : Hussain, Shahzad et al. "Globalization and Income Distribution: Evidence from Pakistan". European Journal of Social Sciences. Vol 8(4) : 2009

Let me continue to elaborate:-


It looks to me as if the author is trying to say that income inequality increased in most sectors while overall profits also increased. I guess that means an exponential increase in the salaries, profits and benefits of the bourgeois, while a crushing, low production cost approach which has suppressed the working class.

Let us see further:-

​

Conclusion from paper:



Source : Anwar, Talat. "Growth and Sectoral Inequality in Pakistan: 2001-02 to 2004-05". Pakistan Economic and Social Review . Vol. 45(2) : 2007

Now we move onto Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, our premiere institute of research in economics. Source

A very basic overview:-

​

Consumption Inequality over the years rose after '99:-

​

Now moving to another paper:-

​

Source : Jamal, Haroon. "Does Inequality Matter For Poverty Reduction? Evidence From Pakistan’s Poverty Trends". Social Policy and Development Centre. Research Report No.58. 2004

And these are values where poverty figures, especially of 2005, where fudged as proven conclusively by many authors. If you want evidence on that, I can bring up that as well.

You are welcome to check the sources. But, I will warn you before you make any pointless and misguided claims. Consumption and household income have increased since '99 levels, but so has the upward mobility of a large number of people. This makes it impossible for a larger number of people to live within their means. Overall as numerous sources have stated, income inequality has risen. And I have to premeditate again and tell you that I do not hold the opinion that somehow the '90s was a time of economic prosperity but the years '00 - '06 brought devastation to our economy for it has eaten our economic and financial structure like termites. I haven't even gone into a deep academic research, just basic Google searches. Give me a couple of days over the summers and I'm pretty sure I'll gather a book load of data to support my claims.

As I have said earlier, growth in the services sector is not pro-poor and without creating jobs, creates an economic bubble where an ever decreasing proportion of the population amasses wealth. In the words of the noted economist Kaiser Bengali, "in the period when the agriculture sector grew by 1.5 percent and the banking sector grew by 30 percent ….. this was jobless growth". I have pointed out to you time and again that the people who were hovering around the fringes of the upper middle class managed to enter the upper middle class but the proletariat and working class faced increasing pressures for they were not employed by banks, investment firms or insurance companies, who were able to monopolize and cartelize under the watchful eye of their friend Shaukat Aziz.

You choose to read Dr. Ashfaque Ahmed, Dr. Ishrat Hussain, Dr. Salman Shah and their likes. I tend to read them but agree with Dr. Meekal Aziz, Dr. Kaiser Bengali, Dr. Ali Cheema and their likes. One group focuses solely on Import substitution industrialization (ISI), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Real GDP growth rates. The other divides sectorially to examine that the agricultural sector witnessed staganancy, consumer financing was the key to the "success", financial sector returned record profits, investment was inefficient (tax waivers, one-door policies for foreign firms, subsidies, protection from labour market through anti-union laws etc.)

Having socialist leanings, I reject the idea of "trickle down effect" for I am convinced through extensive study that the "trickle down effect" never takes place and while capitalistic economies focused on such a role have provided ever rising living standards, they inherently promotes a rule of the elite and this in turn allows them to exploit the masses. Marx and Engel never argued that it was impossible for living standards to improve under capitalism but that economic and social crises can never be indefinitely postponed under such an economic system.

Try to move beyond rhetoric, simplistic analysis, elite view of economic growth and look at structural changes rather than import oriented improvements. I did not imagine that I would ever convince somebody with an avatar of Pervez Musharraf, but I find it difficult to believe that people can be so elitist that they are willing to crush the larger percentage of people, so that they can move in their cars in the big cities.

http://www.unescap.org/stat/data/syb2008/ESCAP-SYB2008.pdf


I will post more soon.


[quote="sparklingway, post: 809042"]And again you chose to ignore that people consider it far better now, not just because of the the judicial movement but because of real changes. You are adamant only because it effects the ego of the maniac who trampled the constitution and judiciary. Nonetheless, you falsified claims even after I have presented proof of you deliberate distortions.

I've maintained that lower judiciary is corrupt but the higher judiciary has set standards of competence, honesty, dedication and sweeping changes are taking place. With the passage of the Public Defender and Legal Aid Office Ordinance, 2009 things will improve further for the average person.[/quote]

[IMG]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1752/corruptjudiciary3.jpg

it clearly states SUPREME COURT!

I know it's tough for people who rallied for the so called "free" judiciary movement to accept facts.

The fact that there was a 400% increase in corruption!

 

[ajpirzada]

Sir jee, the fact is there was a 400% increase in corruption!

well i have given you examples from the real life and not just the numbers. and also i made my point clear when i said it takes time before the whole institution is cleaned.

The fact is people who were involved in the so called "free" judiciary movement came up with this not me.

give me some credible names so we could see wat evidence have they provided in this regard.

Your answer from the man himself:

YouTube- FROM THE DESK OF PERVEZ MUSHARRAF - POWER GENERATION

i couldnt even find a single answer to all the points i raised earlier. about power generation, well he himself accepts that he failed to forecast the rise in demand. now wat?

 

[z9-ec]

well from the tables being posted on this thread i can see a decrease in corruption since 2007 onwards. now if u want to give all this credit to musharraf well im only amazed. the thing im amazed at is there was no decrease in this regard from 2002 till 2007 but only when the judiciary became more bold this reduction was noticed.

Decrease since 2007 onwards? read again.

Infact, I will post the image again. This was published by TI not me.

TI states there was a 400% increase in 2009.

 

[ajpirzada]

Decrease since 2007 onwards? read again.

Infact, I will post the image again. This was published by TI not me.

TI states there was a 400% increase in 2009.

well i changed my statement before u replied. anyways lets carry on with ur argument. let me ask u when was this judiciary restored? march 2009? am i right? if i am right then how can you use this stat (2009 figures) to judge the performance of this judiciary.

 

[sparklingway]

Oh, my God ! What is this :-

​

What? Gini coefficient shows a higher inequality? What does that mean? Doesn't that mean that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer? Indeed it does. What did all the earlier sources prove? That income inequality has risen and even accelerated in sectors where the poor are the major workforce. Has the income ratio of the top 20% crossed 50%? Yes. Did the Gini coefficient take an upward move after '00? Yes. Have the poverty figures of the Planning Commission for the years '03 and '05 been challenged? Yes, they have been (but I leave that point to argue for later).

My earlier point proven by your own source. I based my entire argumentation on income inequality for that is what you claimed wasn't true. I never talked about poverty alleviation, for that is a topic I leave for this weekend.

I used academic sources for they involve regional conclusions as well.

And please use selective quote, you make the thread way too long and its difficult to scroll up and down all the time.

 

[z9-ec]

well i changed my statement before u replied. anyways lets carry on with ur argument. let me ask u when was this judiciary restored? march 2009? am i right? if i am right then how can you use this stat (2009 figures) to judge the performance of this judiciary.

Sir jee, the question is not when CJP returned. What you should be asking yourself is who let this happen? who was responsible for the 400% increase in corruption?

Oh, my God ! What is this :-

​

This actually proves me right. the gini index remained stable at 30% and the wealth distribution as you claim did not exceed as you deemed.

The Gini coefficient can range from 0 to 1; it is sometimes multiplied by 100 to range between 0 and 100. A low Gini coefficient indicates a more equal distribution, with 0 corresponding to complete equality, while higher Gini coefficients indicate more unequal distribution.

 

[sparklingway]

Doesn't it rise from 28.7 to 30.4 to 31.2? Or is that too small a change? This isn't a collection of papers where 1 does not matter. This is inequality and means that millions are being deprived.

Wealth distribution changed for the worse. For God's sake take a detailed look at my super-long post. I do not want you to agree with me, but study it at least.

"Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices"

""Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel P Moynihan

 

[ajpirzada]

Sir jee, the question is not when CJP returned. What you should be asking yourself is who let this happen? who was responsible for the 400% increase in corruption?

the same person who destabilised judiciary first hand which lead to a chaos lik situation and hence provided a window of opportunity to employees to mint some money.
isnt this the right chain of events?

btw wat are those 13% figures mentioned in the highlighted part.

 

[z9-ec]

Yes, I'm entitled to disagree. As it is not only me that disagree's, all of the global institutions like UN, WB, IMF, ADB and etc.

The point is the stupendous growth led to the expansion of the middle class and employment. While, the distribution of wealth in accordance Gini coefficient remained stable.
As I pointed out earlier it is rated from 0 to 100.

 

[z9-ec]

the same person who destabilised judiciary first hand which lead to a chaos lik situation and hence provided a window of opportunity to employees to mint some money.
isnt this the right chain of events?

The figures indicate that during Gen. Musharraf's tenure corruption was reduced significantly. While, post-judicial activism corruption rose 4 times.

btw wat are those 13% figures mentioned in the highlighted part.

Percentage of people out of those sampled. They introduced two new sectors otherwise judiciary would have been at the top.

 

[sparklingway]

And I'm entitled to hold my opinion

btw wat are those 13% figures mentioned in the highlighted part.

Percentage of total average corruption paid. Means judicial process involved 13 percent of the total average bribery. e.g. X paid Rs. 10,000 in bribes across 5 sectors and if he paid Rs. 2,000 as bribe to Police, Police percentage shown will be 20%)

Do note that this not mean that the bribe was taken by the Judge. It involves lawyers, court attendants, bailiffs, clerks, assistants to magistrates and other administrative staff. Like fake Dr. Babar Awan, many lawyers take bribes promising favorable verdicts (in many cases when they know the case will definitely be won, they mint extra money and in some cases when they know they can't win, they mint extra money).

Percentage of people out of those sampled. They introduced two new sectors otherwise judiciary would have been at the top.

I've mentioned the correct thing above. You misunderstood the table.