Pakistan would become among top ten economies at its 100th anniversary: Ahsan Iqbal

[Viper0011.]

It's just not going to happen, top 20 perhaps but nowhere near the top 10.

I agree. But even in Top 20, Pakistan would be in MUCH better condition (from a developed country criterion's standpoint) than say India, China or even Brazil. The landmass is about 7 times or more, LESS than that of India and China. The population is ALSO 7 or more times LESS than India and China.
So the country's government can provide a LOT more to its people (if proper democratic government remains) even being a top 18th economy, than larger countries like China and India which will be at number 1 and 2. Simply because of the fact that the country has less population and less landmass. So where say 1 or 2 trillions (as an example) may not mean a lot to China and India or the US by 2030, for Pakistan, it would turn the country into a near-developed state. Simply put, a smaller household with fewer people has less expenses than a much larger household with many people in bigger homes. Smaller household can enjoy a much better lifestyle in quarter of the money compared to a significantly larger family living in a significantly larger home.

 

[MilSpec]

I agree. But even in Top 20, Pakistan would be in MUCH better condition (from a developed country criterion's standpoint) than say India, China or even Brazil. The landmass is about 7 times or more, LESS than that of India and China. The population is ALSO 7 or more times LESS than India and China.
So the country's government can provide a LOT more to its people (if proper democratic government remains) even being a top 18th economy, than larger countries like China and India which will be at number 1 and 2. Simply because of the fact that the country has less population and less landmass. So where say 1 or 2 trillions (as an example) may not mean a lot to China and India or the US by 2030, for Pakistan, it would turn the country into a near-developed state. Simply put, a smaller household with fewer people has less expenses than a much larger household with many people in bigger homes. Smaller household can enjoy a much better lifestyle in quarter of the money compared to a significantly larger family living in a significantly larger home.

I am struggling to understand the math here, You are saying smaller population along with smaller landmass is better than having larger landmass and larger population, ignoring the ratio of population especially when compared to nations like china and Brazil...


Following are population density numbers and when you put pakistan ahead of countries like china and Brazil, it is perplexing.
Brazil 61.59/sqm
China 366.49/sqm
Pakistan 600.27/sqm

So assume with 1million dollars, pakistan with today dollars would be able to provide more say 600 people in square mile compared to brazil which has 62 people in one square mile or china which has 366 people in a square mile????....

Some explanation would definitely help

 

[Viper0011.]

I am struggling to understand the math here, You are saying smaller population along with smaller landmass is better than having larger landmass and larger population, ignoring the ratio of population especially when compared to nations like china and Brazil...


Following are population density numbers and when you put pakistan ahead of countries like china and Brazil, it is perplexing.
Brazil 61.59/sqm
China 366.49/sqm
Pakistan 600.27/sqm

So assume with 1million dollars, pakistan with today dollars would be able to provide more say 600 people in square mile compared to brazil which has 62 people in one square mile or china which has 366 people in a square mile????....

Some explanation would definitely help

Actually it wasn't as hard and complex as you've made it. A BILLION people require a LOT more money to get welfare, benefits and education and other amenities that we in the developed nations enjoy. 200 or 250 million people would require a quarter of what it'd take for a Billion people to have those benefits. Now in terms of economics and economy per say, you'll need much less money to provide necessities to people with a population of 200 million or so vs. a billion. Similarly, the infrastructure in 7* the area requires a lot more money to build vs. in a place that 7* smaller. So the value of economic growth to be in top 20 would be enough to take Pakistan much forward. But it'll take a LOT more money and time even at the number 1 and 2 level for India and China to qualify as 'developed nations'. I don't think there is any rocket science and mystery in that. Read last part of my previous post about a simple household. Pretty self explanatory.

 

[k_arura]

He said that the country's economy has been growing at average of 5 or 5.5 percent which is not sufficient adding that if "we have to put the economy on right path, we need decent growth".

He expressed the hope that the country's economy would become among top ten economies at its 100th anniversary.

Economy turns around, indicators show positive change: Ahsan Iqbal

Good luck. I am pretty sure. Except for one BIG if. Really big. Would it be around to see that happen? Catch 22.

 

[illusion8]

Actually it wasn't as hard and complex as you've made it. A BILLION people require a LOT more money to get welfare, benefits and education and other amenities that we in the developed nations enjoy. 200 or 250 million people would require a quarter of what it'd take for a Billion people to have those benefits. Now in terms of economics and economy per say, you'll need much less money to provide necessities to people with a population of 200 million or so vs. a billion. Similarly, the infrastructure in 7* the area requires a lot more money to build vs. in a place that 7* smaller. So the value of economic growth to be in top 20 would be enough to take Pakistan much forward. But it'll take a LOT more money and time even at the number 1 and 2 level for India and China to qualify as 'developed nations'. I don't think there is any rocket science and mystery in that. Read last part of my previous post about a simple household. Pretty self explanatory.

sorry about butting in but there are couple of discrepancies in your post.

1. Pakistan is the 5th most populated state in the world right now and multiplying fast and even if the economy happens to be in the top twenty in another 40 years - it doesn't necessarily become an advanced / developed state. Though the infra bit because of lesser land area can be accepted or debated upon - as in less scope for development and growth or land to balance out residence, agriculture and manufacturing.

2. The net value of the economy between the top 3 and no.20 is too big, as in there is a lot of difference.

you are right about India and China though - the world economy is not big enough to accommodate billion plus high income USD.30K per annum worth individuals.

 

[MilSpec]

Actually it wasn't as hard and complex as you've made it. A BILLION people require a LOT more money to get welfare, benefits and education and other amenities that we in the developed nations enjoy. 200 or 250 million people would require a quarter of what it'd take for a Billion people to have those benefits. Now in terms of economics and economy per say, you'll need much less money to provide necessities to people with a population of 200 million or so vs. a billion. Similarly, the infrastructure in 7* the area requires a lot more money to build vs. in a place that 7* smaller. So the value of economic growth to be in top 20 would be enough to take Pakistan much forward. But it'll take a LOT more money and time even at the number 1 and 2 level for India and China to qualify as 'developed nations'. I don't think there is any rocket science and mystery in that. Read last part of my previous post about a simple household. Pretty self explanatory.

for now lets just consider china in your example.

Larger population in china has economy that is 36 times of Pakistan.... now by your own logic

China's economy is 36 times of pakistan
China population density is half of pakistan

So if you keep the same poplation density and consider just a section 1/7th section china which will be comparable to pakistan in size, it still will have an economy 36times that of pakistan, thus can spend 72 times more per capita.

So for every dollar that pakistan has to spend on a person chinese counterpart will have $72.

When you scale population density, you cannot ignore the sheer size of economy of brazil or china which are substantially bigger than pakistan.

 

[Pakistani shaheens]

Even though we have engaged for 10 years deadly war with terrorist and zardari as president ,still our economy is growing, it's very good thing and it's miracle. And I can bet that no country in this world would achieve this if it got 10 years big deadly war and zardari as president.

 

[ghoul]

hahahaha! You very shamelessly showed your true fraudulent and beghairat nature but of course what else to expect from a Daal khor. Now go eat your daal and keep farting and the time tested saying again proven correct that no matter how much a Daal Khor tries to pass off as a descendent of some blue eyed and blonde haired Central Asians a Daal Khor will always remain a coward and a beghairat Daal Khor.

An Afghani calling others "beghairat". His pedophile kind watches little kids dressed in drag dance, and yet he has the nerve to call others beghairat lol. No wonder peshawar tops the list of gay **** searches on google trends. Also in Afghanistan, these wretches say that women are meant to procreate, and the real "pleasure" is in men and little boys. This son of a b**** with no history and no real historical knowledge tries to be the most intellectual on this forum. And lol at his "coward" comment. Go learn history you najaiz ba*****. These Afghani wretches were called "mlechhas" by Punjabi hindus/brahmins. Mlechhas are described to worse than untouchables.

Also you Afghani sood-khor, bachabaaz scumbag,I hope you don't live in Islamabad. Your kind is not welcome there. Your durand line arguments do not work there. I wish the government would just shoot any of his kind crossing the river Indus.

Also you don't know jack s*** about genetics, so keep your Afghani education to yourself. Most Afghanis have a clear Jewish ancestry. Their huge and hooked noses, and tendency to be greedy and sood-khour, highlights that.

 

[IND151]

Well its not inconceivable to be honest but highly unlikely, we have 34 years left to achieve it. That is quite a lot of time.

Without Strong manufacturing sector it is not possible for Pakistan, also Pakistan is not energy superpower like Russia while having 50 to 60% more population.

Pakistan should concentrate on Power, manufacturing and law and order.

 

[ghoul]

Also, another thing to add to this list derailed by a bachabaaz TTP supporter; Rajputs are not always from Rajputana. One of the most famous Rajput tribes; the Katoch of Kangra, have no link to Rajasthan. General Raheel and Haroon Aslam are descendants of Katoch, and belong to their "Chibh" subcaste. Also there are clear genetic differences Rajasthani, adn Himalayan rajputs.

 

[Viper0011.]

for now lets just consider china in your example.

Larger population in china has economy that is 36 times of Pakistan.... now by your own logic

China's economy is 36 times of pakistan
China population density is half of pakistan

Of course, nothing good about Pakistan is digested easily with the Indian community here Lets dumb this shi*t down for ya. One: you made an incorrect statement to take the readers off track as usual. China's population density isn't HALF of Pakistan. It is FOUR times more than of Pakistan, 1.3 billion people vs. 220 million people in a landmass about 14 times that of Pakistan. So per capita may be higher but each dollar has to be spent for its population across 14 times more than what Pakistan has. So at the end of the day, you are incurring hundreds of billions of overhead due to infrastructure expansion on a much vast area than Pakistan. Thus, the per capita income may be more, the dollars are spent on a larger scale creating tremendous overhead.

sorry about butting in but there are couple of discrepancies in your post.

1. Pakistan is the 5th most populated state in the world right now and multiplying fast and even if the economy happens to be in the top twenty in another 40 years - it doesn't necessarily become an advanced / developed state. Though the infra bit because of lesser land area can be accepted or debated upon - as in less scope for development and growth or land to balance out residence, agriculture and manufacturing.

2. The net value of the economy between the top 3 and no.20 is too big, as in there is a lot of difference.

you are right about India and China though - the world economy is not big enough to accommodate billion plus high income USD.30K per annum worth individuals.

Thank you for an intelligent post. Glad to see someone talks facts than just let's go against whatever good is listed about Pakistan.
You are correct with majority of your statements. The only small correction is that your last point also takes care of the number 2 also. The Net value is too big. But so is the size and the population. Shrink that by 14 times in area, 4 times in population and 18 times below the Economy number 1. The size of the economy is still much larger with the population in scope with the landmass in scope.....

 

[MilSpec]

Of course, nothing good about Pakistan is digested easily with the Indian community here Lets dumb this shi*t down for ya. One: you made an incorrect statement to take the readers off track as usual. China's population density isn't HALF of Pakistan. It is FOUR times more than of Pakistan , 1.3 billion people vs. 220 million people in a landmass about 14 times that of Pakistan. So per capita may be higher but each dollar has to be spent for its population across 14 times more than what Pakistan has. So at the end of the day, you are incurring hundreds of billions of overhead due to infrastructure expansion on a much vast area than Pakistan. Thus, the per capita income may be more, the dollars are spent on a larger scale creating tremendous overhead.

dear sir,
It has nothing to do about good or bad about pakistan, it is about ludicrous comments made and lack of simple arithmetic and lack of simple comprehension demonstrated in your post....
following is map of population density

Population density

China 366.49/sqm
Pakistan 600.27/sqm

Further more , for
simplicity of comprehension-
Definition of population density: measurement of population per unit area...

Simplicity in Arithmetic: 600.27>366.49

To simplify further:
Pakistan : Area: 310,403 sq miles to house population of 186,325,572, thus population density is 600.269
China: Area 3,722,342 sq miles to house population of 1,364,190,560, thus population density is 366.48

Hope that helps....

regards

p.s. try to keep your rhetoric civil and in accordance to the forum guidelines.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well our population should be curbed down to 100,000 Million mark or 80 Million mark.
That would solve many of our social problems.

I think we in general provide only marginal quality of life to 40 Milllion people. While 100 Million live lives below middle class levels, a larger figure is farmers and extremely low paying jobs

May be only 1 Million in class we can say is really rich rich.

 

[My-Analogous]

Of course, nothing good about Pakistan is digested easily with the Indian community here Lets dumb this shi*t down for ya. One: you made an incorrect statement to take the readers off track as usual. China's population density isn't HALF of Pakistan. It is FOUR times more than of Pakistan, 1.3 billion people vs. 220 million people in a landmass about 14 times that of Pakistan. So per capita may be higher but each dollar has to be spent for its population across 14 times more than what Pakistan has. So at the end of the day, you are incurring hundreds of billions of overhead due to infrastructure expansion on a much vast area than Pakistan. Thus, the per capita income may be more, the dollars are spent on a larger scale creating tremendous overhead.



Thank you for an intelligent post. Glad to see someone talks facts than just let's go against whatever good is listed about Pakistan.
You are correct with majority of your statements. The only small correction is that your last point also takes care of the number 2 also. The Net value is too big. But so is the size and the population. Shrink that by 14 times in area, 4 times in population and 18 times below the Economy number 1. The size of the economy is still much larger with the population in scope with the landmass in scope.....

Bro let me clear these knucklehead what you are trying to say in simple ABC method.

One piece of bread

Pakistan = 18 peoples=18 pieces
India=112 peoples=112pieces
China=130 peoples= 130 pieces
Now multiply by 10 million and then guys know that Pakistan need less miles compare to India and China and both country need extra miles to achieve the target.

 

[thasti_phasti]

dear sir,
It has nothing to do about good or bad about pakistan, it is about ludicrous comments made and lack of simple arithmetic and lack of simple comprehension demonstrated in your post....
following is map of population density

Population density

China 366.49/sqm
Pakistan 600.27/sqm

Further more , for
simplicity of comprehension-
Definition of population density: measurement of population per unit area...

Simplicity in Arithmetic: 600.27>366.49

To simplify further:
Pakistan : Area: 310,403 sq miles to house population of 186,325,572, thus population density is 600.269
China: Area 3,722,342 sq miles to house population of 1,364,190,560, thus population density is 366.48

Hope that helps....

regards

p.s. try to keep your rhetoric civil and in accordance to the forum guidelines.

Pakistan area is 350,000sq miles.