animelive
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,594
- Reaction score
- 1
The article did say 1600 which you opposed aand now its 1591, so what is there to process?just curious
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The article did say 1600 which you opposed aand now its 1591, so what is there to process?just curious
The article did say 1600 which you opposed aand now its 1591, so what is there to process?just curious
Ironically he doesn't see that Pakistan's 1288 is also rounded off to 1300.
The article did say 1600 which you opposed aand now its 1591, so what is there to process?just curious
He wanted to say that 1600 is an estimate by IMF staff and not the actual figures of Government of India.
Indeed, most economies do have shadow economies. In Bangladesh's case, there is no good (reliable) estimate for the size of the shadow economy. Some crude estimates put that closer to 40%+ of the economy.
The point is there should have been lots of (unreported), new economic activities (probably involving 'new' economic sectors altogether) that would have been included had pro-growth, sustainable development policies been implemented. Instead, BAL (government) ruined it all by widespread looting, policy paralysis, nepotism and corruption, diplomatic inertia/failure, and the fact that BAL is a stooge so it would never take any step to propel Bangladesh economy to a greater height than that of its "dadababus" (its masters across the border wearing "dhotis").
Bangladesh has been using a base year of 1995-1996 to produce National Accounts statistics for as late as 2011-2012. And yet, all they can add upon shifting to a new base year of 2005-2006 is 15%? For Nigeria, shifting from a base year of 1993-1994 to the current/next year, the GDP revision is slated to be upwards of 40%.