What's new

Pakistan poised to become fast growing economy: WB

Regardless, you need harvard graduates in every sector of India be it interpreting Pakistan reserves or whatever for that matter because the Indians cant see a simple fact of HOW pakistan has been at the recieving end of an international war on terrorism in Afghanistan where India plays proxy to serve its own interests..

Indian graduates being smarter than even bangladeshi does no good to India itself. The fact of the matter is that 90 % of the graduates and even lower percentage of those in engineering are employable or have the skills to work in any sector.

Pakistan has a higher rate of Human Development Indices, Better sanitation facilities, higher upward mobility for its youth and higher enrollment rates for elementary education compared to India.

has your 60% higher per capita research benefited you in improving the whole citizen experience ??

If your so educated then why is India crowned the rape capital of the world ??

Why is there pushback on using toilets where 65 % of the Indian population lacks basic sanitation facilities ??

dude, i can show you the MIRROR too ..But chose to stay on the topic :D

Harvard graduates are needed to see how Pakistan has lower forex reserves than even Bangladesh.No wonder Pakistan has one of the worst economies in the region.

Indian graduates are atleast smarter than retarded Pakistani graduates as they produce over 12 time reasearch output than pakistan which means India has a 60%higher per capita research output.
 
.
Maybe for you the number of posts is a matter of pride much like the mere mention accusation of a being a data fudge in an IMF report is a case of lost virginity thereby warranting suicide - But not for me :)

I have slightly different standards and better things to worry about in life, than to be worried about lied perpetrated under fancy terms to sound ECONOMICAL.

Oh and mere mention of bollywood is not profanity, it is an attempt to make one understand in the simplest of terms using media as a common base - But anyhow, I know that might be a bit out of your mental level where the best comeback you have to my posts is the justification of your "Greatness" over the number of posts and nothing else :).

Now getting back to the topic.

The survey aquisition process and the higher sample is exactly part of the problem, let me show you how :

1. For instance to extract a higher sample, a new category called “quasi-corporates” was introduced in the new series to capture that segment of household enterprises which are unincorporated but maintain accounts. The savings of this set of firms is then imputed based on survey data. But in the absence of detailed balance sheet data, such imputations are not credible, this has already been ratified by K.G.K. Subbarao, a former RBI official, you can check his article in an Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) article published in May. Besides, “the partial set of data available from the surveys does not exactly fit the definition conceived in the SNA 2008”, . This is according to his statement.

2. Similarly, i already mentioned this in a previous post but the use of service tax as a proxy for growth of certain services, and the use of growth rates of the organized manufacturing industry to estimate growth for unorganized manufacturing could potentially be over-estimating growth. After all, the growth in service tax partly reflects tax deepening (as new services are brought under the tax net) and does not accurately capture tax buoyancy.

The assumption that unorganized manufacturing is growing at the same rate as organized manufacturing appears unrealistic. There is evidence to show that unorganized manufacturing has not kept pace with the growth of organized manufacturing over the past few years.

Now the CSO tries to use the most current indicators of growth where available BUT there ARE NO ANNUAL SURVEYS.

Here is a Quote from Ashish Kumar the Director general of CSO (can be googled) :“If we have annual surveys such as annual survey of services, we can use the survey data to compute growth. But in the absence of such surveys, we have to rely on proxies such as tax data.”

3. THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ASPECT :

The most controversial aspect of the new series relates to the estimates for the corporate sector, and the use of a new methodology to arrive at these estimates. As reported by indian paper the Mint on 2 April, methodological changes at the eleventh hour inflated the final estimates of corporate sector growth.

The earlier series derived the corporate sector estimates based on a sample survey of companies conducted by RBI. This sample consisted of only a few thousand companies, and hence the estimates were blown up (or multiplied) in proportion to the coverage of the paid-up capital of sample companies to the total number of companies registered with the ministry of company affairs (MCA). The problem with such estimation lay in blowing up the sample estimates because it was widely noted that many companies which are registered with MCA are inactive, or are shell companies, or they do not file returns.

4. A sub-committee was formed to examine and recommend or discard the use of the "New Database" and they recommended to use the new database MCA-21, to construct the new GDP series. But instead of using the estimates generated from the database directly, as agreed upon by the sub-committee, CSO scaled up even these estimates to account for non-reporting companies, which had declared returns in earlier years.

This was done on the advice of an advisory committee. - Who runs this committee "Modi Sarkar" ??

This change has been questioned by an independent member of the sub-committee, R. Nagaraj, economist and professor at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai being one of them.

And I can go on and on ....but for your level. Can you refute these discrepancies from the sources that I have listed ??



Yes the bhaijan has no issues with the standard but with those countries who cant use good enough data to put the standard to good use :D

I guess you need Harvard Graduates at every level of the collection process to make sense out of fudged Indian statistics data.

The Indian graduated idi0ts are just not good enough as it is ...lol

Ok so the breadth of your knowledge of economics is copying and pasting from this article:

Why India’s GDP controversy refuses to die - Livemint

and adding your underlines and red font to things that stand out to you...in an effort to make it look like you wrote it.

First question, how were any of these problems different to the older data series that used factor cost? I bet you couldn't answer that even if you tried, since it would involve you to spend days of research at the very least (and thats provided you know something about Economics to begin with).

How are they different to the massive problems all countries face in estimating GDP in the first place (Even large developed countries?)

Have you actually read any of the articles written by economists regarding countries such as China, US, Canada, UK, France etc.. regarding the change to SNA 2008?

The best part is you made it sound like the ENTIRE service sector revenue is based on tax deepening.

Here is your exact quote:

Someone needs to tell these SNA2008- wannabees that measuring the speed of tax revenue recovery does not equate to REVENUE GROWTH in the Services sector.

When the article clearly mentions qualifiers like "partly" "some" and "potentially" instead of direct "equals" and "all".

Every economist knows the main reason for the increase stem from moving up the base year and using GVA instead of factor cost over a higher amount of sample units.

The IMF itself has been involved in the process:

India gets IMF help on 'back-casting' of new GDP data - timesofindia-economictimes

and there has been a downward revision recently as more back series data and coefficients becomes available.

The main critic quoted by the article (Subbarao) has a big axe to grind with the current administration of India and RBI....so his views are quite tainted.

The author of the article himself has cherry picked what suits his agenda....by not looking at what other economists have to say (to balance in the other direction) regarding notable improvements in the new series over the old one. He is after all a journalist.

If they are such issues and the only issues that matter, the IMF would not have vetted the series and their team would not have used it to forecast India's GDP in WEO till 2020.

Compare this to Pakistan where the IMF refuses to predict GDP past current financial year.

We really do not care what a person from such a country has to say about another's GDP estimate.

Oh and mere mention of bollywood is not profanity

Oh and you had to use $$ in a word because you spell it that way in real life? I put a comma in my sentence...did not say one is the other.

But maybe distorting what I typed is all you can manage.
 
.
Dude, what kind of an idi0t are you ?? you do understand that being ONLY on my 20th post I cannot post links in my rebuttals and even if i did what difference would it make ??

When did i state that this is MY PROPRIETARY article ?? - are you out of your mind ?

I understand the shock you have just recieved from a "20 message DUDE" but do you really think I have time to sit up and type verbatim in my own words when i can simply relay what I'm trying to say by sharing information available on the net from media sources in a chat forum ??

This is a chat forum, not my Job where i will sit and write out each word for your perusal. The main intention is to reply to your post and not have an evaluation done by you, on how i record my responses online !

When i have to put my words into writing at a probable forum then i will go through the effort otherwise, much like everything else online we do rely on quoting and sharing information. Whats so different about that ??

Are you here to discuss India's GDP fudging or my ability to produce economic literature ??

Now getting back to the topic. Many factors are different from the cost factor approach :

1. GVA calculated at cost factor approach used production cost or prices paid for products recieved by the producers. The new formula takes into account "Market Prices" or paid by consumers.

You can get GVA at market prices by adding GVA at factor prices plus the addition of Indirect taxation minus any subsidies.

So in other words the value of the taxation net of any subsidies is now added to the value of the output.

2. THE BIGGEST OBJECTION to this method is that the GDP figure is OPEN to manipulation from two factors :

A. Raising Taxes

B. Subsidiy Disbursals

3. Now comes the fun part, lets start with Raising taxes. Now in an attempt to RAISE taxes they thought the first thing they have to do is to increase the tax net. So therefore they opted to increase the survey sample from a previous 25 00 companies to 500, 000 companies. Which is a good marketing ploy, and may have been useful if the intention had been to report accurate figures . But because a good number of these organizations are household enterprises which means that

I can start a company tommorrow in India and hand out financials worth of Hundreds of thousands of Revenue to the Surveying organization but regardless of whether i pay tax on it or not my org's revenue is still incorporated in the nations GDP figures.. Amazing.

Likewise, thousands if not millions of such organizations that had never published financials were "INCLUDED" in the tax calcuation resulting in an inflated GDP.

THIS NEVER HAPPENED in the previous calculation as indirect Taxes like sales were not included.

4. Using Tax growth from services industries in one sector is fine BUT then using those estimates to come up with GVA figures for the unorganized sector of manufacturing is potentially over-stating information.

How do you reconcile a balance sheet or income statement entry without having an associated source transaction to it ??

If this is not data fudging, I dont know what is !

5. And Taking tax returns from previous years for corporations to account for Value ADD for the current year is an acceptable practice ??

Specially given the fact that alot of those companies may have rolled up or be shell companies, or havent filled there tax returns for whatever reason

Does modi sarkar have a magic wand to come up with VALUE ADD on the basis of non-existant companies that never operated or even existed but added value from a GDP perspective ??

This is a laughable predicament !...hahahaha

Enough said. The main issue is not what others country have said or done but what happens in india from a GDP perspective. If your looking to set an example then merely "appearing to look like" implementing an international standard doesn't fit the bill from a Good GDP data perspective.

You have to have the right data to back it up as well.

Also get done with this indian habit of shooting the messenger in throwing rubbish at the author of the article as it ALSO lists several prominant Indian economists that back his assertion.

Stick to the topic - what we do in Pakistan is a topic for another discussion and you dont have to worry about what a citizen of another country says about your GDP BUT when your own Chief economists asks the world to "NOT BUY into the Growth numbers" to it, then maybe as investors in any sense, you should take it seriously :D



Ok so the breadth of your knowledge of economics is copying and pasting from this article:


and adding your underlines and red font to things that stand out to you...in an effort to make it look like you wrote it.

First question, how were any of these problems different to the older data series that used factor cost? I bet you couldn't answer that even if you tried, since it would involve you to spend days of research at the very least (and thats provided you know something about Economics to begin with).

How are they different to the massive problems all countries face in estimating GDP in the first place (Even large developed countries?)

Have you actually read any of the articles written by economists regarding countries such as China, US, Canada, UK, France etc.. regarding the change to SNA 2008?

The best part is you made it sound like the ENTIRE service sector revenue is based on tax deepening.

Here is your exact quote:



When the article clearly mentions qualifiers like "partly" "some" and "potentially" instead of direct "equals" and "all".

Every economist knows the main reason for the increase stem from moving up the base year and using GVA instead of factor cost over a higher amount of sample units.

The IMF itself has been involved in the process:

and there has been a downward revision recently as more back series data and coefficients becomes available.

The main critic quoted by the article (Subbarao) has a big axe to grind with the current administration of India and RBI....so his views are quite tainted.

The author of the article himself has cherry picked what suits his agenda....by not looking at what other economists have to say (to balance in the other direction) regarding notable improvements in the new series over the old one. He is after all a journalist.

If they are such issues and the only issues that matter, the IMF would not have vetted the series and their team would not have used it to forecast India's GDP in WEO till 2020.

Compare this to Pakistan where the IMF refuses to predict GDP past current financial year.

We really do not care what a person from such a country has to say about another's GDP estimate.

And now let me quash another myth that you propagate up here about how the IMF has helped india in setting the new standard.

This information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. ALL that the IMF did is went in to "ADVISE" of their experience on back tracking of data with other countries and to share "Best Practices". It was never an exercise of the IMF to "Certify" that India's backtracking process or the validity of the Data being used is "Authentic" !

Here is the reference from your own link as to how the IMF never "Audited" the process to test how accurate it is - So much for NOT fudging data ! :D

India gets IMF help on 'back-casting' of new GDP data

"The team's visit was part of the IMF's regular programme of providing technical assistance to member countries for capacity building. Reports about the team auditing India's newly adopted GDP methodology were incorrect," Rice said.


However the alarm they showed at the BUMP is still a mystery according to Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian, who had also served previously at IMF, last month termed the revised GDP growth figures have "puzzled" him and said the numbers have been "bumped up" and it was a mystery how to interpret them.

I guess he must have some beef against modi sarkar too ?? Isnt it ?? ALL are blind including the RBI chief except yourself :D


Ok so the breadth of your knowledge of economics is copying and pasting from this article:


and adding your underlines and red font to things that stand out to you...in an effort to make it look like you wrote it.

First question, how were any of these problems different to the older data series that used factor cost? I bet you couldn't answer that even if you tried, since it would involve you to spend days of research at the very least (and thats provided you know something about Economics to begin with).

How are they different to the massive problems all countries face in estimating GDP in the first place (Even large developed countries?)

Have you actually read any of the articles written by economists regarding countries such as China, US, Canada, UK, France etc.. regarding the change to SNA 2008?

The best part is you made it sound like the ENTIRE service sector revenue is based on tax deepening.

Here is your exact quote:



When the article clearly mentions qualifiers like "partly" "some" and "potentially" instead of direct "equals" and "all".

Every economist knows the main reason for the increase stem from moving up the base year and using GVA instead of factor cost over a higher amount of sample units.

The IMF itself has been involved in the process:



and there has been a downward revision recently as more back series data and coefficients becomes available.

The main critic quoted by the article (Subbarao) has a big axe to grind with the current administration of India and RBI....so his views are quite tainted.

The author of the article himself has cherry picked what suits his agenda....by not looking at what other economists have to say (to balance in the other direction) regarding notable improvements in the new series over the old one. He is after all a journalist.

If they are such issues and the only issues that matter, the IMF would not have vetted the series and their team would not have used it to forecast India's GDP in WEO till 2020.

Compare this to Pakistan where the IMF refuses to predict GDP past current financial year.

We really do not care what a person from such a country has to say about another's GDP estimate.



Oh and you had to use $$ in a word because you spell it that way in real life? I put a comma in my sentence...did not say one is the other.

But maybe distorting what I typed is all you can manage.
 
.
Dude, what kind of an idi0t are you ?? you do understand that being ONLY on my 20th post I cannot post links in my rebuttals and even if i did what difference would it make ??

When did i state that this is MY PROPRIETARY article ?? - are you out of your mind ?

I understand the shock you have just recieved from a "20 message DUDE" but do you really think I have time to sit up and type verbatim in my own words when i can simply relay what I'm trying to say by sharing information available on the net from media sources in a chat forum ??

This is a chat forum, not my Job where i will sit and write out each word for your perusal. The main intention is to reply to your post and not have an evaluation done by you, on how i record my responses online !

When i have to put my words into writing at a probable forum then i will go through the effort otherwise, much like everything else online we do rely on quoting and sharing information. Whats so different about that ??

Are you here to discuss India's GDP fudging or my ability to produce economic literature ??

OK didnt realise that (link wise), sorry.

So in other words the value of the taxation net of any subsidies is now added to the value of the output.

GVA is better than factor cost as a result. Hence its incorporation into SNA 2008

THE BIGGEST OBJECTION to this method is that the GDP figure is OPEN to manipulation from two factors :

A. Raising Taxes

B. Subsidiy Disbursals

Subsidies in one area arise from taxation in another. It does not affect GDP estimate accuracy in theory. You are barking up the wrong tree.

3. Now comes the fun part, lets start with Raising taxes. Now in an attempt to RAISE taxes they thought the first thing they have to do is to increase the tax net. So therefore they opted to increase the survey sample from a previous 25 00 companies to 500, 000 companies. Which is a good marketing ploy, and may have been useful if the intention had been to report accurate figures . But because a good number of these organizations are household enterprises which means that

I can start a company tommorrow in India and hand out financials worth of Hundreds of thousands of Revenue to the Surveying organization but regardless of whether i pay tax on it or not my org's revenue is still incorporated in the nations GDP figures.. Amazing.

You completely have misunderstood. The 520,000 companies all file tax returns. That is the very basis of MCA-21.

What some complain about is the quality/depth of these returns...but that is their subjective opinion and varies from economist to economist.

This is the number that is extrapolated to cover entire active companies (estimated at 900,000 by CSO).

The scaling up of 2500 done by the older RBI series was reflective of the older series computing at factor cost. Mr. Nagaraj assumed the same level of scaling was being done in the new series too (he has been complaining about such regarding IIP and all sorts of CSO series since 1999 without looking at the details). CSO promptly corrected him and there has been no couter-rebuttal from him since.

The rest of your post is again taking the criticism of MCA-21 on the basis of no tax returns which is fallacious and misleading.

Have you even looked at the revenue breakdown w.r.t total from adding these companies compared to the haphazard scaling estimate done before? You are speaking as though the suddenly represent a massive fraction of the total amount when at most they represent maybe around 15% of paid capital....again from the CSO article.

Enough said. The main issue is not what others country have said or done but what happens in india from a GDP perspective. If your looking to set an example then merely "appearing to look like" implementing an international standard doesn't fit the bill from a Good GDP data perspective.

An issue several teams of the IMF never had any problem with. If you are angry international organisations have accepted, reviewed and published the new Indian data, thats your personal qualm. They are people that have way more experience with the subject than you.

Also get done with this indian habit of shooting the messenger in throwing rubbish at the author of the article as it ALSO lists several prominant Indian economists that back his assertion.

Please list these several prominent economists. I have been following KGK Subbarao and Nagaraj for a long time now. They are certainly not that prominent ....but they do seem to have a big axe to grind with the CSO and RBI since the RBI fired the former and CSO ignored the latter's suggestions. What a surprise they both took it so personally.

Stick to the topic - what we do in Pakistan is a topic for another discussion and you dont have to worry about what a citizen of another country says about your GDP BUT when your own Chief economists asks the world to "NOT BUY into the Growth numbers" to it, then maybe as investors in any sense, you should take it seriously

"Chief economists" lol. Let them remain unnamed....we will just take your word that they are "chief" status...lol.

However the alarm they showed at the BUMP is still a mystery according to Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian, who had also served previously at IMF, last month termed the revised GDP growth figures have "puzzled" him and said the numbers have been "bumped up" and it was a mystery how to interpret them.

And have you read any of what the CEA has since said?

Of course you haven't.

Pakistan has a higher rate of Human Development Indices,

Have you even bothered to check the Human Development Index?
 
.
The Governor of RBI was miquoted. Here is his follow on statement.

Google for the following: "raghuram rajan says never doubtd gdp numbers" Please open the first link.

As a Pakistani, neither are you very knowledgeable, neither well versed with what re balancing is.

That said, at the end of the day rants on an online forum won't yield you much when heavy hitters like Raghuram Rajan(the Governor of RBI) along with other economists have endorsed the change.


Hard as it might be for you. No one's burning their a$$. The only thing is you are being educated on what actual economic predictions are.

What seem's so big to you that you feel other's might get jealous for, is nothing less than very ordinary for those of us whose countries have already achieved much more. As a Pakistani however you are hardwired to believe that you are getting something extra ordinary that other's covet.

all you Edians obsession with Pakistan since the day you all slams were born will go to your grave until the day you all Hindus going to die...this is the secret the world knows

So therefore while knoting a tie take the swing and kindly have good bye
 
.
Harvard graduates are needed to see how Pakistan has lower forex reserves than even Bangladesh.No wonder Pakistan has one of the worst economies in the region.

Indian graduates are atleast smarter than retarded Pakistani graduates as they produce over 12 time reasearch output than pakistan which means India has a 60%higher per capita research output.

No Indian graduate is smarter than Pakistani grads, I have worked with many below average Indian grads. We just see a mass load of them in IT and the smart ones help the below average ones to learn to do the job. The laundromat down the street and the dry cleaner where my shits go for ironing every week, are also owned by an Indian guy. If he was that smart, and above average, I think he'll be working like Sundar at Google. Not running a Dry Cleaner shop making $ 50K a year!!!!

I am quantifying this with with experienced and have hired dozens of Indians, Russians, Israelis, and Nepalis, Chinese and some Pakistanis. That's the stupidest thing to say that an Indian grad is better than a Pakistani grad. Pakistanis are much more street smart than Indians are. That's just a reality. Indians are more book smart than street smart and that's a fact too, with less openness and social skills. I work with plenty of industry's top global businesses and I hear this ALL the time.

For India's growth, India should say thank you to China, for where India is today. If there wasn't a Chinese factor involved and the West wasn't freaked out about China, India wouldn't have gotten half of the education grants, research work, H1B's and jobs they got. Add our lobby loving politicians who, to make millions for themselves, sold out millions of ordinary American jobs to India, and Indian businessmen paid well (and are still paying), at all levels!!

Like I said in many posts before, give 10 million H1B's to Pakistanis in the US, and give 10 millions in Pakistan, outsourced American and other Western hi-tech jobs. You'd be surprised to see Pakistan passing Australia in GDP.

Talk is cheap and there are 1.2 billion Indian internet warriors connected to the cable "talking" all the time. Do a comparison that makes sense.You read these posts and laugh, apparently a such a large country (5 times the population and are) and 26 times bigger economy, is obsessed with a 5 times smaller country. I think this alone speaks volume of the credentials Pakistan has.

If you want to see a growing Pakistani economy and measure it after a decade (half the time it took you since 1995 when the growth started in the Tech sector), measure the GDP then. The road India embarked upon in 1995, is now available to Pakistan. Give them 10 years and see where it goes. Just silly comparisons and bullshiit concepts of Indian superiority is just silly. Pakistanis, Israelis, Chinese, Russians all have great talent. If that wasn't the case, India would've conquered Pakistan decades ago, and would be selling Advance Weapons to Israel and Russia, not buying from them :angel: :rofl: :lol: :enjoy: :tup:
 
.
No Indian graduate is smarter than Pakistani grads, I have worked with many below average Indian grads. We just see a mass load of them in IT and the smart ones help the below average ones to learn to do the job. The laundromat down the street and the dry cleaner where my shits go for ironing every week, are also owned by an Indian guy. If he was that smart, and above average, I think he'll be working like Sundar at Google. Not running a Dry Cleaner shop making $ 50K a year!!!!

I am quantifying this with with experienced and have hired dozens of Indians, Russians, Israelis, and Nepalis, Chinese and some Pakistanis. That's the stupidest thing to say that an Indian grad is better than a Pakistani grad. Pakistanis are much more street smart than Indians are. That's just a reality. Indians are more book smart than street smart and that's a fact too, with less openness and social skills. I work with plenty of industry's top global businesses and I hear this ALL the time.

For India's growth, India should say thank you to China, for where India is today. If there wasn't a Chinese factor involved and the West wasn't freaked out about China, India wouldn't have gotten half of the education grants, research work, H1B's and jobs they got. Add our lobby loving politicians who, to make millions for themselves, sold out millions of ordinary American jobs to India, and Indian businessmen paid well (and are still paying), at all levels!!

Like I said in many posts before, give 10 million H1B's to Pakistanis in the US, and give 10 millions in Pakistan, outsourced American and other Western hi-tech jobs. You'd be surprised to see Pakistan passing Australia in GDP.

Talk is cheap and there are 1.2 billion Indian internet warriors connected to the cable "talking" all the time. Do a comparison that makes sense.You read these posts and laugh, apparently a such a large country (5 times the population and are) and 26 times bigger economy, is obsessed with a 5 times smaller country. I think this alone speaks volume of the credentials Pakistan has.

If you want to see a growing Pakistani economy and measure it after a decade (half the time it took you since 1995 when the growth started in the Tech sector), measure the GDP then. The road India embarked upon in 1995, is now available to Pakistan. Give them 10 years and see where it goes. Just silly comparisons and bullshiit concepts of Indian superiority is just silly. Pakistanis, Israelis, Chinese, Russians all have great talent. If that wasn't the case, India would've conquered Pakistan decades ago, and would be selling Advance Weapons to Israel and Russia, not buying from them :angel: :rofl: :lol: :enjoy: :tup:
Orangzaib,(Your original username which proves you are a pakistani)
India has 9 universities in Top 100 university in Asia according to QS world ranking.Pakistan has ZERO
Shows the poor quality and incompetence of Pakistani graduates.

Also Pakistan's economy opened up in 1960s whereas India's opened up in 90s, so despite having a 30 years head start Pakistan is still miles behind India.Shows lack of capability.

LMAO.
India ranked 130 I latest HDI index up 5 ranks YoY whereas Pakistan is rabkedv147 and down 1 rank.
| Human Development Reports

No wonder Beef Behenji has IQ <20.
 
Last edited:
.
Orangzaib,(Your original username which proves you are a pakistani)
India has 9 universities in Top 100 university in Asia according to QS world ranking.Pakistan has ZERO
Shows the poor quality and incompetence of Pakistani graduates.

Also Pakistan's economy opened up in 1960s whereas India's opened up in 90s, so despite having a 30 years head start Pakistan is still miles behind India.Shows lack of capability.

LMAO.
India ranked 130 I latest HDI index up 5 ranks YoY whereas Pakistan is rabkedv147 and down 1 rank.
| Human Development Reports

No wonder Beef Behenji has IQ <20.
viper.png


He is a Pakistani and breaking forum rules by showing both US flags.
 
.
GVA is better than factor cost as a result. Hence its incorporation into SNA 2008

Its not about whats better its about which one to use. Cost factor valuation is always lower than Market Price and has less inconsistencies caused by the infusion of taxes and subsidiaries.

If it was so bad then the rest of the world wouldnt have had it as a standard up until not to long ago.

"You completely have misunderstood. The 520,000 companies all file tax returns. That is the very basis of MCA-21.

What some complain about is the quality/depth of these returns...but that is their subjective opinion and varies from economist to economist"

So you are admitting that they're have been reports of inconsistencies with the tax reporting mechanism which the critics are crying about.

You tell me, if i file a FAKE tax return which according to you is a "quality" issue, then how are resultant GVA figures going to be accurate ??

Does this make sense to you ??:D

BUddy stick with me and i will drill down to enough details to make you accept all the things I've said. It may not be in one go as I have a life outside of defence.pk as well, but what i like even better is getting down to the truth :D

Read up on MCA-21, the database has had serious issues keeping up with tax returns that never reached them while filed electronically and even through the mailing system. Primarily because this newly created database has had software bugs due to the 90 % unemployable idiots trying there hands on it. - but thats a story for another day and the less said about the Indian postal service the better. But both of those topics are another debate.

So, so far what he have seen is that everything from the "quality" to the "filing" of the tax returns has been rightfully questioned by the critics to be a problematic area for major concern in concluding the value add figures as you just stated.

So then my question is, in good conscience, doesnt it make sense to have an improved system running in place before making the move to a standard that more heavily relies on data from it ??

India tries to emulate OECD and western countries BUT you need to have processes and infrastructure in place wont get you there.

This is one of the reasons why guys like raghuram and other critics dont trust the numbers above and on top of the fact that many of the tax returns CSO has claimed to have used are from PRIOR years.

So yes, technically ALL the firms have filed taxes BUT not for every year and this is where the fudging happened by terming it "estimates" .

The same thing happened for the unorganized manufacturing sector again from the article.

Because of your "benevolence" in extending me your trust in the case of my use of the term "chief economists" i have also taken the courtesy to extend to you the benefit over the tax returns case, BUT you still need to show me proof of how these irregularities were fixed to the satisfaction of the critics ??

The scaling up of 2500 done by the older RBI series was reflective of the older series computing at factor cost. Mr. Nagaraj assumed the same level of scaling was being done in the new series too (he has been complaining about such regarding IIP and all sorts of CSO series since 1999 without looking at the details). CSO promptly corrected him and there has been no couter-rebuttal from him since.

The rest of your post is again taking the criticism of MCA-21 on the basis of no tax returns which is fallacious and misleading.

No offence dude, but i might be willing to take an internet-nobody's words over the economists mentioned in the article and the doubts raised by raghuram provided im given some concrete proofs to support YOUR assertion.

So far you have done nothing like that.

Your lay mention of "scaling" and whats been handled or not is not enough to satisfy critics like myself all the way upto the chief economist of RBI.

Bring facts, quote articles - Prove what you just said!


OK didnt realise that (link wise), sorry.



GVA is better than factor cost as a result. Hence its incorporation into SNA 2008



Subsidies in one area arise from taxation in another. It does not affect GDP estimate accuracy in theory. You are barking up the wrong tree.



You completely have misunderstood. The 520,000 companies all file tax returns. That is the very basis of MCA-21.

What some complain about is the quality/depth of these returns...but that is their subjective opinion and varies from economist to economist.

This is the number that is extrapolated to cover entire active companies (estimated at 900,000 by CSO).

The scaling up of 2500 done by the older RBI series was reflective of the older series computing at factor cost. Mr. Nagaraj assumed the same level of scaling was being done in the new series too (he has been complaining about such regarding IIP and all sorts of CSO series since 1999 without looking at the details). CSO promptly corrected him and there has been no couter-rebuttal from him since.

The rest of your post is again taking the criticism of MCA-21 on the basis of no tax returns which is fallacious and misleading.

Have you even looked at the revenue breakdown w.r.t total from adding these companies compared to the haphazard scaling estimate done before? You are speaking as though the suddenly represent a massive fraction of the total amount when at most they represent maybe around 15% of paid capital....again from the CSO article.



An issue several teams of the IMF never had any problem with. If you are angry international organisations have accepted, reviewed and published the new Indian data, thats your personal qualm. They are people that have way more experience with the subject than you.



Please list these several prominent economists. I have been following KGK Subbarao and Nagaraj for a long time now. They are certainly not that prominent ....but they do seem to have a big axe to grind with the CSO and RBI since the RBI fired the former and CSO ignored the latter's suggestions. What a surprise they both took it so personally.



"Chief economists" lol. Let them remain unnamed....we will just take your word that they are "chief" status...lol.



And have you read any of what the CEA has since said?

Of course you haven't.



Have you even bothered to check the Human Development Index?
OK didnt realise that (link wise), sorry.



GVA is better than factor cost as a result. Hence its incorporation into SNA 2008



Subsidies in one area arise from taxation in another. It does not affect GDP estimate accuracy in theory. You are barking up the wrong tree.



You completely have misunderstood. The 520,000 companies all file tax returns. That is the very basis of MCA-21.

What some complain about is the quality/depth of these returns...but that is their subjective opinion and varies from economist to economist.

This is the number that is extrapolated to cover entire active companies (estimated at 900,000 by CSO).

The scaling up of 2500 done by the older RBI series was reflective of the older series computing at factor cost. Mr. Nagaraj assumed the same level of scaling was being done in the new series too (he has been complaining about such regarding IIP and all sorts of CSO series since 1999 without looking at the details). CSO promptly corrected him and there has been no couter-rebuttal from him since.

The rest of your post is again taking the criticism of MCA-21 on the basis of no tax returns which is fallacious and misleading.

Have you even looked at the revenue breakdown w.r.t total from adding these companies compared to the haphazard scaling estimate done before? You are speaking as though the suddenly represent a massive fraction of the total amount when at most they represent maybe around 15% of paid capital....again from the CSO article.



An issue several teams of the IMF never had any problem with. If you are angry international organisations have accepted, reviewed and published the new Indian data, thats your personal qualm. They are people that have way more experience with the subject than you.



Please list these several prominent economists. I have been following KGK Subbarao and Nagaraj for a long time now. They are certainly not that prominent ....but they do seem to have a big axe to grind with the CSO and RBI since the RBI fired the former and CSO ignored the latter's suggestions. What a surprise they both took it so personally.



"Chief economists" lol. Let them remain unnamed....we will just take your word that they are "chief" status...lol.



And have you read any of what the CEA has since said?

Of course you haven't.



Have you even bothered to check the Human Development Index?
 
. .
India ranks 130 out of 155 countries in the Gender Inequality Index (GII) for 2014, way behind Bangladesh and Pakistan that rank 111 and 121 respectively, according to data in the United National Development Programme’s latest Human Development Report (HDR) 2015.

Among South Asian countries, India fares better than only Afghanistan which is at 152.


The index captures inequalities in gender-specific indicators: reproductive health measured by maternal mortality ratio and adolescent birth rates, empowerment quantified by share of parliamentary seats and attainment in education, and economic activity measured by labour market participation rate.

Pakistan and Bangladesh have a lower Human Development Index (HDI) than India and yet perform better on gender equality as measured by GII. India is placed 130 out of 188 on the Human Development Index (HDI) with Bangladesh at 142 and Pakistan at 147.

But with respect to each parameter on the gender index, India lags behind both its neighbours. Consider this:

* Merely 12.2 per cent of parliamentary seats are held by women in India as against 19.7 in Pakistan and 20 in Bangladesh.

* India is also beset with a high maternal mortality rate of 190 deaths per 100,000 live births as compared to 170 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 births in both Bangladesh and Pakistan.

* In percentage of women receiving secondary education, Bangladesh at 34 per cent far outperforms India at 27 per cent.

* On labour force participation rate for women, Bangladesh is at 57 per cent, India is at 27 per cent.

* In all the above indexes, India’s performance is way below the South Asian average.

The only parameter where India fares slightly better is the adolescent birth rate, which is the number of births per 1000 women aged 15 to 19 years. A lower adolescent birth rate indicates a female population that is more in control of its choices when it comes to marrying and conceiving late.

On this scale, India’s figures are much better than that of Bangladesh as well as the South Asian average, though Pakistan’s record is marginally better than India’s.

UNDP officials state that over the last couple of years, India’s GII values have improved slightly from 0.61 to 0.563. This is mainly due to improvements in maternal mortality rate and women’s representation in parliaments in this period though other indicators have remained stagnant.

The HDR 2015, which is focused on the issue of work, also documents a global drop in female labour force participation rate, which is the proportion of working-age population in paid employment or looking for paid work. “This is owing mainly to the steep reduction for India, from 35 per cent women in 1990 to 27 per cent in 2013, and China from 73 per cent to 64 per cent in the same period,” said Yuri Afanasiev, UNDP resident representative in India.

According to Renana Jhabwala, national coordinator, Self-Employed Women’s Association, women’s workforce participation, by virtue of its invisibility, is largely under-counted in much of the government surveys.
 
.
India ranks 130 out of 155 countries in the Gender Inequality Index (GII) for 2014, way behind Bangladesh and Pakistan that rank 111 and 121 respectively, according to data in the United National Development Programme’s latest Human Development Report (HDR) 2015.

Among South Asian countries, India fares better than only Afghanistan which is at 152.


The index captures inequalities in gender-specific indicators: reproductive health measured by maternal mortality ratio and adolescent birth rates, empowerment quantified by share of parliamentary seats and attainment in education, and economic activity measured by labour market participation rate.

Pakistan and Bangladesh have a lower Human Development Index (HDI) than India and yet perform better on gender equality as measured by GII. India is placed 130 out of 188 on the Human Development Index (HDI) with Bangladesh at 142 and Pakistan at 147.

But with respect to each parameter on the gender index, India lags behind both its neighbours. Consider this:

* Merely 12.2 per cent of parliamentary seats are held by women in India as against 19.7 in Pakistan and 20 in Bangladesh.

* India is also beset with a high maternal mortality rate of 190 deaths per 100,000 live births as compared to 170 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 births in both Bangladesh and Pakistan.

* In percentage of women receiving secondary education, Bangladesh at 34 per cent far outperforms India at 27 per cent.

* On labour force participation rate for women, Bangladesh is at 57 per cent, India is at 27 per cent.

* In all the above indexes, India’s performance is way below the South Asian average.

The only parameter where India fares slightly better is the adolescent birth rate, which is the number of births per 1000 women aged 15 to 19 years. A lower adolescent birth rate indicates a female population that is more in control of its choices when it comes to marrying and conceiving late.

On this scale, India’s figures are much better than that of Bangladesh as well as the South Asian average, though Pakistan’s record is marginally better than India’s.

UNDP officials state that over the last couple of years, India’s GII values have improved slightly from 0.61 to 0.563. This is mainly due to improvements in maternal mortality rate and women’s representation in parliaments in this period though other indicators have remained stagnant.

The HDR 2015, which is focused on the issue of work, also documents a global drop in female labour force participation rate, which is the proportion of working-age population in paid employment or looking for paid work. “This is owing mainly to the steep reduction for India, from 35 per cent women in 1990 to 27 per cent in 2013, and China from 73 per cent to 64 per cent in the same period,” said Yuri Afanasiev, UNDP resident representative in India.

According to Renana Jhabwala, national coordinator, Self-Employed Women’s Association, women’s workforce participation, by virtue of its invisibility, is largely under-counted in much of the government surveys.
Gone full retard. The hell you posting in economy thread.
 
.
some idiots here think india is all hunky dory when it comes to human development index...this is just an eye opener for them...

Gone full retard. The hell you posting in economy thread.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom