Why Pakistan's Market Beats China's And India's

[Finer]

one side of picture. it should be noted that an organization has totally opposite interests and goals when compared to a country`s. A ceo may well handle economic side of picture but there are lots of need to be considered when pursuing economic policy of a country.keep in mind that,irrespective of the fact that a ceo and a prime minister have more or less same duties to perform but a leader having support of its constituency has to take sometimes such decisions which a imposed person cant take due to the fact of its job nature activities.

Example would be nice considering the role of CEO is similar while keeping the company profitable in running and ruthless concerning the budgets matter as well as the professionalism factor. Plus, with the nation running in profitable and economically independenc; the budgets improve in leaps and bounds in regards to the benefits concerning the civilians.

As far as Zardari`s experience was concerned so it may be a one factor but whole thing was not due to this. other factors also played very important role mainly the 'focus on priorities and domestic as well as foreign outlook' played a very crucial role in demising of Pak economy other then the fact that Musharaf and its cohorts developed such a structure of economy which had to fall once they left.

What exactly did Musharraf do that left with the stable economy behind for Zardari? It is not exactly economy if it is bankrolled by funding. At that rate, the nation would remain dependable on the fundings to keep the economy afloat, in essence the nation is hardly economically independence to begin with.

 

[hassan zohaib]

Example would be nice considering the role of CEO is similar while keeping the company profitable in running and ruthless concerning the budgets matter as well as the professionalism factor. Plus, with the nation running in profitable and economically independenc; the budgets improve in leaps and bounds in regards to the benefits concerning the civilians.

first of all, if a countryt is run by a CEO then, as i said, the main goal would become to maximize the wealth no matter which means are adopted while a PM does not have only this goal to achieve rather he lives in a environment where his performance is not only evaluated upon the criteria of economic performance. he has to respond to the different stakeholders like judiciary etc. if, suppose, judiciary comes into the way of a CEO performance then he would definitely adopt such measures which harm other stakeholders. so it is better that a-constituency elected person run the country because he is accountable there on the different criteria when compared to a CEO`s.

What exactly did Musharraf do that left with the stable economy behind for Zardari? It is not exactly economy if it is bankrolled by funding. At that rate, the nation would remain dependable on the fundings to keep the economy afloat, in essence the nation is hardly economically independence to begin with.

yeah definitely my point. it were the funding which kept afloating our economy with the growth rate of average 5% in Musharaf era. foreign aid, which was the charecteristic of all the military rule in Pak, support of america were cruicial in building the image of country and the manipulation of Balance sheet etc were the factors as well.
so when Musharaf left then the artficial structure collapsed because infact the funding which were coming from unknown sources stopped to inflow.

 

[Thomas M]

CPEC is working its magic

How exactly sir, while the project is still in progress ??

 

[Finer]

first of all, if a countryt is run by a CEO then, as i said, the main goal would become to maximize the wealth no matter which means are adopted while a PM does not have only this goal to achieve rather he lives in a environment where his performance is not only evaluated upon the criteria of economic performance. he has to respond to the different stakeholders like judiciary etc. if, suppose, judiciary comes into the way of a CEO performance then he would definitely adopt such measures which harm other stakeholders. so it is better that a-constituency elected person run the country because he is accountable there on the different criteria when compared to a CEO`s.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. CEO from every business empires are always accountable, hence the performance to earn their keeps; in this case, position of PM with powers to maintain in exchange for the stable economically running nation.

The point is the person with the background of business should be considered to lead than any generals with little to no expertise on the economy which is crucial in the keeping the nation economically stable. Security-wise, that's what Pakistan army, Police enforcement, Agency, and Intel networks are for. Economically-wise, that is different game; totally alien to any kind of generals as the history attests to that.

yeah definitely my point. it were the funding which kept afloating our economy with the growth rate of average 5% in Musharaf era. foreign aid, which was the charecteristic of all the military rule in Pak, support of america were cruicial in building the image of country and the manipulation of Balance sheet etc were the factors as well.
so when Musharaf left then the artficial structure collapsed because infact the funding which were coming from unknown sources stopped to inflow.

That's why it is called aid, not economy. Musharraf reformative economic policy had huge loophole from the beginning. It was going to be failure as soon the fund stopped rolling. With his stable economy he had, his policy has left Pakistan in ruins with the birth of TTP to promote their terrorism and allowing his favorite MQM to wreak havoc on the major economical port didn't help either which were dumped on Zardari to deal with those baggage. Zardari was setup for failure, even if he was partly guilty with shady outlook.

 

[hassan zohaib]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. CEO from every business empires are always accountable, hence the performance to earn their keeps; in this case, position of PM with powers to maintain in exchange for the stable economically running nation.

The point is the person with the background of business should be considered to lead than any generals with little to no expertise on the economy which is crucial in the keeping the nation economically stable. Security-wise, that's what Pakistan army, Police enforcement, Agency, and Intel networks are for. Economically-wise, that is different game; totally alien to any kind of generals as the history attests to that.

i am just trying to say :
objectives and goals are totally different of an organization and a country hence of a CEO and a PM.
economy is not only criteria which a PM is evaluated upon.
whenyou will run a country through profit perspectives then only division in societies will emerge and provision of services to masses will be neglected.
this is all about what i am trying to say.

That's why it is called aid, not economy. Musharraf reformative economic policy had huge loophole from the beginning. It was going to be failure as soon the fund stopped rolling. With his stable economy he had, his policy has left Pakistan in ruins with the birth of TTP to promote their terrorism and allowing his favorite MQM to wreak havoc on the major economical port didn't help either which were dumped on Zardari to deal with those baggage. Zardari was setup for failure, even if he was partly guilty with shady outlook.

just see my previous posts you will come to know that i exactly tried to say the same thing in reponse of your argument.

 

[Finer]

i am just trying to say :
objectives and goals are totally different of an organization and a country hence of a CEO and a PM.
economy is not only criteria which a PM is evaluated upon.
whenyou will run a country through profit perspectives then only division in societies will emerge and provision of services to masses will be neglected.
this is all about what i am trying to say.

I am not sure where you are going with.

Just for clarification:

PM can be from any background; and that includes PM with business background. As history attests, Generals of the past had no inkling in concerning the economical matters, hence the nations were left in ruins dumped on their successors to make it right[democratic]. Whereas for PM with business-nature background, they take the economy to the next step because of their backgrounds, their expertise for that matter. Then, historically as the nation progress well, military takeover illegally to undo all the hard work. It is vicious cycle.

Today, PM with CEO background doesn't need to meet all the criterias anymore because the nation is accorded with Intel agency, Army, Police enforcement, advisors in certain fields,..etc. But nothing can top the priority of economy. If there is no economy, then there is no future. With stable economy, the nation flourishes ahead with people lifestyle improves in leaps and bounds. Not to mention, poverty is eradicated in the massive portions which reduces criminal activities, terrorism, and black market that threatens the economy of the nation. That's why PM has to be business-oriented man to govern over the nation in the modern economically world for the long-term benefits of the nation.

just see my previous posts you will come to know that i exactly tried to say the same thing in reponse of your argument.

You aren't. You are just debating for the sake of debating. The matter would have ended if you agree with my statements earlier if that is what you intended to make points which echoes similar to my points.

 

[hassan zohaib]

i dont know what to say anyways thanx.
i was not debating and nor i do until and unless i want to apprise other person how much illogical their arguments are.
so buddy i just started from your arguement that a Pm should be economic background then i said if a PM would be of that background then it would become impossible for a country to grapple with its unique nature of challenges.
so only focus on economy could be disastorous.

I am not sure where you are going with.

Just for clarification:

PM can be from any background; and that includes PM with business background. As history attests, Generals of the past had no inkling in concerning the economical matters, hence the nations were left in ruins dumped on their successors to make it right[democratic]. Whereas for PM with business-nature background, they take the economy to the next step because of their backgrounds, their expertise for that matter. Then, historically as the nation progress well, military takeover illegally to undo all the hard work. It is vicious cycle.

Today, PM with CEO background doesn't need to meet all the criterias anymore because the nation is accorded with Intel agency, Army, Police enforcement, advisors in certain fields,..etc. But nothing can top the priority of economy. If there is no economy, then there is no future. With stable economy, the nation flourishes ahead with people lifestyle improves in leaps and bounds. Not to mention, poverty is eradicated in the massive portions which reduces criminal activities, terrorism, and black market that threatens the economy of the nation. That's why PM has to be business-oriented man to govern over the nation in the modern economically world for the long-term benefits of the nation.





You aren't. You are just debating for the sake of debating. The matter would have ended if you agree with my statements earlier if that is what you intended to make points which echoes similar to my points.

i dont know what to say anyways thanx.
i was not debating and nor i do until and unless i want to apprise other person how much illogical their arguments are.
so buddy i just started from your arguement that a Pm should be economic background then i said if a PM would be of that background then it would become impossible for a country to grapple with its unique nature of challenges.
so only focus on economy could be disastorous.

 

[Lycurgus.]

Who wrote this article is an idiot. Growth of stock markets doesn't say much about the economy.

 

[VCheng]

Growth of stock markets doesn't say much about the economy.

But it creates a feel-good glow and projects an image of success.

 

[Bharat Muslim]

Bhai jaan, let me assure u they were not arabs, yes America to some extent but America has only helped us for bare minimum. Arab world was actually poor back in the day, they got their rise in late 60s and 70s. It was actually the civil Democratic leader called Mujeeb ur Rehman the reason ''the process got interrupted'' as u wrote. Political stability is the key word here, specially after the death of Kennedy (what a great Friend of Pakistan he was) by this CIA-MOSSAD nexus through rouge jew CIA operatives he was eliminated. And then after our help for Arabian world in 1967 and 1973 wars America and Israel started plotting against us, America was like meri billi mujhe sy meow!!! Thats where the down fall started and that 71 killings also played its part in our international reputation too. Then by bringing Bhutto who nationalized everything and brought 'Quota system' then Zia CIA assured our down fall in nose dive position. This entire process fucked our R&D and industrial and manufacturing capabilities, Hence no real FDI and this is where these Japanese companies started to pour in and established monopoly that stays till today. In between sanctions also played a big part in it Which discouraged the western investors, and hence dented their technological inflow in civilian industry as well as military industry.

Thats how i look at it.

But in Mushy's times we did managed to attract the largest FDI till that time, and that is true because he did some economic reforms. That Shaukat Aziz was mastermind behind that.

no real indian presence here, not even of @Razia Sultana and @Acknowledge

U kid know nothing about my country.

Pakistan may win nuclear war with India but what's the reason it has no chance of winning conventional war, insurgency-on-enemy war (supporting insurgency on enemy territory) and economic espionage and sabotage war, diplomatic war with India? Answer is size – population size, geographic area and material resources. Soviet Nation was a great country and produced great individuals but Afghanistan shattered and vanquished Soviet Union because Soviet Union's population was tiny and it's material resources were scarce – most of Russia is nothing but cold desert. India is not Soviet Union. India has a dense population and is rich in material resources. It is said that a single state of Uttar Pradesh has a population bigger than the entire population of Pakistan. A common refrain of 1965 war is that it was a war of quality versus quantity. But quality has a limitation. One Pakistani soldier may kill dozen Indian soldiers but he has no chance against two dozen Indians. Probably this pattern holds in most walks of life except in contests like sports where only equal number of individuals can represent their respective countries.

Okay. Let me try to explain. Imagine if Pakistan had been as small as Sikkim. Would it hope to win a war with India? Of course Pakistan is not Sikkim but the comparison holds.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

But it creates a feel-good glow and projects an image of success.

and attracts potential FDI.

 

[VCheng]

and attracts potential FDI.

Merely feeling good or projecting an image is no match for true substance in attracting actual FDI.

 

[Finer]

so buddy i just started from your arguement that a Pm should be economic background then i said if a PM would be of that background then it would become impossible for a country to grapple with its unique nature of challenges.
so only focus on economy could be disastorous.

You give little credit to CEO. There are a lot involved in the position of CEO. The role of CEO has been diverse now. Not only that, PM from the business background can handle all kind of challenges as competent Government would do.

Besides, PM would be accorded with the expertise of Intelligent agency, Army, Police enforcement, Advisors of every fields and whatever is needed. But economy should be top priority and why. It is main solution to resolve all the conflicts which remained pending under Military rule.

As history attests why Generals failed because of their lacks of business background which also affected Pakistan big time, and almost isolated Pakistan from the world. Not only that, they assumed the powers during the economic sanctions as the results of Nuclear program in 80s.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Merely feeling good or projecting an image is no match for true substance in attracting actual FDI.

thats why i said, potential FDI.

 

[newb3e]

What are the best performing sectors of Pakistani economy?

not bottling cow urine no sir we are not a giant cow urine consumer and exporter our economy sucks!