As to how Pakistan “reduces” poverty - it just changes the goalposts:
-X-
According to the Economic Survey 2001-02, poverty in Pakistan was reported at 28.2 per cent (based on 1998-99 data), assuming an average caloric-intake of 2150, with Rs 650 per capita per month income national poverty line. However, the standard per capita Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for Pakistan, used by most of the economists and the donors, even many associated with the government use the same, was 2550 calories (adult equivalent) per person per day. All multilateral agencies used the same 2550 caloric-intake, according to the basic need approach, and measured 1998-99 poverty level at 32.6 per cent in Pakistan.
Using the same definition, Household Integrated Economic Survey (HIES) was conducted for 2000-01. It showed incidence of poverty had increased from 30.6 per cent to 32.1 per cent in two years on the basic need approach, with a poverty line of Rs 748 per head per month. However, if all those were included who do not get 2350 calories, the poverty level was 34 per cent. The international donor community, using 2550 calories per head per day, had estimated a number of about 36 per cent. Some recent estimates of various independent economists associated with Pakistan Institute of Development Economic and Human Development Centre show incidence of poverty at 35.6 per cent.
-X-
Why is the Pak govt reluctant to come up with official poverty stats based on the internationally recognized formula?
Talwar. Tsk...tsk...your back again for a whooping. I missed you :(
Percentages are all fine and dandy. But lets look at the real figures.
World Bank Figures in real terms.
India = Poverty - 29% - 29% of 1 billion = 290 million.
Pakistan = Poverty - 33% - 33% of 160 million = 52 million.
290 million compared to 52 million. Aww...pakistan is doing really poorly. All the figures reflect the same. We are better off in real terms than percentages.
Now be a good little boy and let us grown ups do the real work.
CM, all that mediocre education and you still can’t understand that percentages are just another way of looking at absolutes. The strains on the economy on the whole are same if you have 50% in poverty with a population of 100 million or 50% in poverty in a populaiton of 1 billion.
if your percentage of poor is greater in pakistan and gdp percapita is less than India, what does that tell you genius?
You continue to disappoint me..after all these years. Ask for the tuition back sacchi!!
Don’t blame CM. He probably got 85 out of 200 marks in his economics class and looked at another person who got 80 out of 100 and thought to himself that he was better
If all bosses had employees who thought in absolutes, paying them would be a cinch.
Imagine this from CM’s boss:
CM - For your great work, your pay is increased by 20 rupees. Others in the company had their pay increased by at most 10%. But you did better.
yawn Typical Talwar. You cant answer the point at hand so you bring up non-issues.
Like you said "When World Bank says poverty is X%, it means something." Yup it surely does.
Matsui percentages are a method to look at absolutes? You need a refresh course in basic mathematics or what?
[quote]
The strains on the economy on the whole are same if you have 50% in poverty with a population of 100 million or 50% in poverty in a populaiton of 1 billion.
[/quote]
According to your statement above, if the percentages are the same, the strains on the economy are roughly the same. If that is the case pakistan with a lower percentage automatically invokes a smaller strain on the pakistani economy compared to india. 29 vs 33.
No matter how you cut it, pakistan is better off. Real terms. Or your abstract percetages is great for looking at absolute terms method.
Virtually every economic indicator is measured as a ratio for comparison purposes. That is why economics has terms like "per capita," "per annum" etc.
I thought you were being facetious, but if you seriously think that you can get any meaningful picture by comparing absolutes, then you have another thing coming.
[quote]
Virtually every economic indicator is measured as a ratio for comparison purposes. That is why economics has terms like "per capita," "per annum" etc.
[/quote]
True. But look at GDP and GDP per capita. If you look at GDP per capita, Luxembourg is a more viberant and better economy than Switzerland. If you look at total GDP value, you see that Luxembourg has no economy to speak of compared to the Swiss.
Get the idea? The same can be applied to all percentages and ratios. They skew the reality on the ground.
Matsui a simple question to you. If pakistan had an growth rate of 6% and India of 3%, which economy would be better off? Taking on the ground realities at present and the current socio economic conditions.
Or another example, if India’s IT sector grew by 6% and the American IT sector grew by 6%, which would have a large effect on the economy?
GDP: purchasing power parity - $233.4 billion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 0.1% (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $32,000 (2002 est.)
GDP: purchasing power parity - $21.94 billion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 0.4% (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $48,900 (2002 est.)
CM beta… i hate to break it to you but the reality on the ground is that Pakistan is a poorer and hungrier country than India. India is not much better, but trying to prove that it is worse off is not true
From your own source (CIA Factbook), circa 2001, which has 2002 estimated numbers, here is the picture:
India
GDP: purchasing power parity - $2.664 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 4.3% (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $2,600 (2002 est.)
Pakistan
GDP: purchasing power parity - $295.3 billion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 4.4% (FY01/02 est.)
GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $2,000 (FY01/02 est.)
Now since 2002, Indian GDP growth has gone up big time. And on your side poverty has gone up, while GDP growth has also gone up, but not as much as India currently.
So let me get this straight you guys agree with me that percentages mean jack and we should be speaking in absolute terms?
Now firstly i am not arguing economic data. I agree the Indian economy is better than pakistans. No discussion. A dumbass would try to argue otherwise. The indian economy is better than pakistans. We have so many structural problems its facting incredible.
However Pakistan's socio-economic indicators are better than India's.
Btw following the flawed logic you two used about percentages, i could easily say that Pakistan's economy is doing better than India's just by looking out the growth rates. But that would be stupid dont you agree?
Wrong conclusions sirji. I just posted absolute numbers from your own source to show that they don’t convey a true picture. But you can compare per capita GDP and see the difference.
I’m glad you agree.
Yes. that is fallacious because GDP growth varies rapidly from year to year in our largely agrarian economies.
I Disagree.
Socio-economic indicators like poverty, literacy etc. also show that India performs better than Pak.
See the UNDP Human Development Index, which was ironically invented by a Pakistani economist. Pak is ranked 144 as compared to India’s 127. Both are pathetic, we can agree. If you look at the list, the only nations below Pakistan are Yemen, Haiti and bunch of sub-Saharan African countries.
Most importantly, look at the movement of these numbers. Indian poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition etc has been steadily declining while Pakistan’s is increasing.
Now, if you go back to how this whole pi$$ing contest started, it was because of some idiot’s boast about India going down on account of its poverty and hunger. This is not the 1960s anymore and Pakistan has long overtaken India in terms of per capita poverty and diseases. I take no pleasure in pointing out the poverty and depravity in your nation. Mine is only marginally better.
Both nations need to improve. But if some here persist in thinking of India as bhooka-nanga, then they better take a look at their own land.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Talwar. Tsk...tsk...your back again for a whooping. I missed you :(
Percentages are all fine and dandy. But lets look at the real figures.
World Bank Figures in real terms.
India = Poverty - 29% - 29% of 1 billion = 290 million.
Pakistan = Poverty - 33% - 33% of 160 million = 52 million.
290 million compared to 52 million. Aww...pakistan is doing really poorly. All the figures reflect the same. We are better off in real terms than percentages.
Now be a good little boy and let us grown ups do the real work.
[/QUOTE]
Now I am sure CM ke tumhare madarasseme koi simple arithmetic nahi sikhaya tha. Nobody compares two societies with different sizes in absolute numbers. In fact India, a country with much larger population than Pakistan has managed to keep its poverty level lower than Pakistan. That itself is a matter of shame for Pakistan but I do not expect you to understand that. Yous statements betray the kind of education you got in Pakistan. My sypmathies yaar.
