New Base Year Ups FY'13 GDP by US$18 billion

[Chinese-Dragon]

You may have quoted an absurd figure. If the GDP is $220 billion and the annual growth is 4%, then the GDP will grow by $8.8 billion. In order to grow by $20 billion and the rate of growth is 4%, then Pakistan GDP must be $500 billion.

However, is Pakistan GDP really growing by 4% annually?

You forgot to account for inflation.

Nominal GDP growth = Real GDP growth + Inflation

And inflation tends to be high in developing countries. Which is why GDP expands so much more than real growth rates would suggest.

 

[Maira La]

Couldn't help yourself could you? This is what I talking about the other day, Bangladeshis can't help but drag India into every darned issue.

Oh didn't know such a simple comparison would hurt your feelings!

You guys don't compare your GDP to China or other countries or something? Lol.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

Thanks. I have checked the sentence. But, we have to understand that our news reporters are not that educated. So, they may make some mistakes. Note that the sentence you have referred to has no meaning at all. Seems it was written in a hurry.

I have posted another news on Muhith's statement. He was bragging of per capita $1044 for BD. This is what he said, "Sri Lanka with an annual per capita income of $2923 in 2012-13 tops the South Asian countries.

India’s per capita income of $1527 may be somewhat eroded by the fall in the value of the rupee vis-a-vis the dollar, much the same way as Pakistan’s annual per capita income that now stands at $1380."

Now need a war again between india-Pakistan, that will downgrade their per capita more .

 

[Sugarcane]

Now need a war again between india-Pakistan, that will downgrade their per capita more .

More peaceful way is change your base year again

 

[PlanetSoldier]

@eastwatch Muhith was talking about per capita income. It is possible as last time I heard it was above 900 USD. But per capita income and per capita GDP are both not the same. Just wondering do you have idea what should be the minimum per capita income required to be elevated as middle income country???

Per capita income and per capita GDP are definitely 2 different things. If your family has 5 members and all together these 5 members earn 1500, your per capita income is 300. GDP is different, you'll find that our GDP and GNI have big differences (per capita wise) because there's huge distance between rich and poor. If Square is producing huge revenue, it's not going to a poor penny less guy. But Square is contributing to gross domestic production (GDP).

Find the World Bank criteria of income group here How we Classify Countries | Data .

 

[eastwatch]

@eastwatch Muhith was talking about per capita income. It is possible as last time I heard it was above 900 USD. But per capita income and per capita GDP are both not the same. Just wondering do you have idea what should be the minimum per capita income required to be elevated as middle income country???

I think, our FM Muhith, his officers and news reporters all make the same mistake. They cannot really differentiate between the per capita GNI (gross national income) and per capita GDP.

But, since Muhith is talking about GDP at $151 billion and then about per capita income, therefore, the $1,044 is per capita GDP. He did not say a word about remittance from abroad.

Per capita GNI is about ($1044 + $14.4 billion remittance/15.5 million people) = $1,044 + $93 = $1,137.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Per capita income and per capita GDP are definitely 2 different things. If your family has 5 members and all together these 5 members earn 1500, your per capita income is 300. GDP is different, you'll find that our GDP and GNI have big differences (per capita wise) because there's huge distance between rich and poor. If Square is producing huge revenue, it's not going to a poor penny less guy. But Square is contributing to gross domestic production (GDP).

Find the World Bank criteria of income group here How we Classify Countries | Data .

It seems now we are lower middle income country per world bank classifications.

The groups are: low income, $1,035 or less; lower middle income, $1,036 - $4,085; upper middle income, $4,086 - $12,615; and high income,$12,616 or more

Our per capita income stands at 1044 now per the new base year.

 

[farhan_9909]

You may have quoted an absurd figure. If the GDP is $220 billion and the annual growth is 4%, then the GDP will grow by $8.8 billion. In order to grow by $20 billion and the rate of growth is 4%, then Pakistan GDP must be $500 billion.

However, is Pakistan GDP really growing by 4% annually?

No,i am not.

List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from 2010-11 fy to 2011-12fy pak gdp grew by 21billion dollars.

from 2011-12fy to 2012-13 pak gdp grew by 20billion dollars to 252.6billion dollars now


this is not only with Pakistan but even if you check indian GDP.it grew by almost 90billion dollars when there gdp only was 500billion dollars within 1 year in 2004-05 but the growth rate was only 7.1% back than

Pak GDP might become 270-280billion dollars by 2014

comparing pak and bangladesh GDP and there history.
Bangladesh GDP was once higher than pak.than was only a couple of billion dollars less than pak..now the difference is twice

https://www.google.com.pk/#q=pakistan+GDP

Pakistan GDP | Actual Value | Historical Data | Forecast | Calendar

 

[Skies]

Oh now Ive got it why they were talking about per capita Income of 1024 a few days ago, because they are saying that based on new base system that the report did not mention. Poor reporting.

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

Anyway, 2005 is very old, more recent should have been used.

I think new service like online freelancing, call centers service are not included. But who knows if these all are under the market value of IT sector only.

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

And about the 60% real GDP robust growth, I think it is large because the volumes of new services and products added based on new baseyear are multiplied with their respective recent price. Suppose, a new product is added with the new baseyear system that has a price of 100 taka. Now if BD had produced that 10 years ago, the price of that new product could have been 50 taka, and then because of using old/base year's price in real GDP calculation, the real GDP growth would not be that much large like 60% today. So since the product is recent, and the price of that product is also recent, not old/base year's price, therefore the real GDP is much bigger now. And I think this large growth of real GDP is natural when new base year of GDP calculation is used, because there is no old base year price for newly added products for real GDP calculation.

 

[Anubis]

Oh now Ive got it why they were talking about per capita Income of 1024 a few days ago, because they are saying that based on new base system that the report did not mention. Poor reporting.

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

Anyway, 2005 is very old, more recent should have been used.

I think new service like online freelancing, call centers service are not included. But who knows if these all are under the market value of IT sector only.

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

And about the 60% real gpd robust growth, I think it is large because the volumes of new services and products added based on new baseyear are multiplied with their respective recent price. Suppose, a new product is added with the new baseyear system that has a price of 100 taka. Now if BD had produced that 10 years ago, the price of that new product could have been 50 taka, and then the real gdp growth would not be that much large like 60% today, because of using base year's price used in real gdp calculation. So the product is recent, and the price of that product is also recent, not past/base year's price, therefore the real gdp is much bigger now. And I think this large growth of real gpd is natural when new base year of gdp calculation is used, because there is not old base year price for newly added products,

But changing base year should have nothing to do with Per capita income....it should be per capita gdp!Aren't they different things??

 

[Skies]

But changing base year should have nothing to do with Per capita income....it should be per capita gdp!Aren't they different things??

Actually that old report was flawed I think. And by Per capita income they perhaps meant per capita GNI [gross national income].

I do not know how they have calculated 1024, my formula of prediction says otherwise.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangla...sh-economy-news-updates-99.html#ixzz2dxq7ANE2

And GNI changes with the new base year if the look at the definition of GNI below.

GNI (formerly GNP) is the sum of value added by all resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from abroad. Data are in current U.S. dollars.

So if new produces and services are added because of new base system, the sum of value added by all resident producers would also change/increase.

 

[eastwatch]

Couldn't help yourself could you? This is what I talking about the other day, Bangladeshis can't help but drag India into every darned issue.

No, @apo_mEaTgRiNdEr was reminding the Indians about some of your posters', probably @LaBong, who were always bragging about Maharastra economy bigger than BD.

All these braggings are now under the quick sand when your per capita $1527 GDP is now sunk to less than $1145. Please refer to post# 11 to read the statement of our Finance Minister. INR has lost 25% of its value, and so is your GDP.

It will sink below the BD per capita once your Rupee becomes 70 to a dollar, which every economist is forecasting. Note that India will have to pay back $150 billion or more by next May to its borrowers, and all the foreigners are leaving India forever with their dollars. So, it is possible that INR will hit 70 to dollar.

 

[Anubis]

No,i am not.

List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from 2010-11 fy to 2011-12fy pak gdp grew by 21billion dollars.

from 2011-12fy to 2012-13 pak gdp grew by 20billion dollars to 252.6billion dollars now


this is not only with Pakistan but even if you check indian GDP.it grew by almost 90billion dollars when there gdp only was 500billion dollars within 1 year in 2004-05 but the growth rate was only 7.1% back than

Pak GDP might become 270-280billion dollars by 2014

comparing pak and bangladesh GDP and there history.
Bangladesh GDP was once higher than pak.than was only a couple of billion dollars less than pak..now the difference is twice

https://www.google.com.pk/#q=pakistan+GDP

Pakistan GDP | Actual Value | Historical Data | Forecast | Calendar

WHAT??Our GDP was never higher than yours!

 

[Maira La]

WHAT??Our GDP was never higher than yours!

He's talking about the future.

 

[Anubis]

He's talking about the future.

Ekhon emon obostha je ei lok kolpona kortese Pakistan Bangladesh er niche theke uthe eshe amaderke charay chole jacche.Hayre Duniya!