What's new

India Pakistan Comparison 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.
India surely needs forign capital/investments but not a bail out. The balance of payment we are talking here surely induces a liquidity situation if not checked. However the buffer of Foreign Reserves of India has been continuously increasing since 2004 (100 billion) to 2010(287 billion). Thats a CAGR of 16% and the size is large enough .

Oth, for Pakistan , If we leave out the Baliout package, it moved from 11.6 in 2004 to 8.9 in 2009. A CAGR of -5%

Bailout wouldn't be too strong a word if you take into account the dismal state of affairs of India's (and Pakistan's) infrastructure, healthcare and education. Each of these areas require massive infusion of funds to correct the abominable situation relative to most of the rest of the world.

At the current rate of improvement, it would take more than 100 years to get to a reasonable standard of living for the majority of the population.
 
Bailout wouldn't be too strong a word if you take into account the dismal state of affairs of India's (and Pakistan's) infrastructure, healthcare and education. Each of these areas require massive infusion of funds to correct the abominable situation relative to most of the rest of the world.

At the current rate of improvement, it would take more than 100 years to get to a reasonable standard of living for the majority of the population.

Bailout is required when the existing liquid reserves of the country are not enough to make the interest/principal payments against the outstanding loans that a country has taken from the world bodies. That is what happened with Pakistan in 2008 when it was forced to accept stringent IMF bailout when its traditional allys failed to come up with a friendly load/aid.

The situation you refer to in India is more of execution than of availability of funds. At the time of bailout, Pakistan's reserves were a piddly $2.5 billion. Compare that with the existing number of $280 billion for India. Even if you factor in the size of the country, India's per capita reserves were almost 15 times that of Pakistan's in 2008
 
ok by airlines PIA is better than AIR INDIA . people of india dont even support air india anymore they say its crappy but as on other side people have been really supporting pia and it actually made profits in 2009 and it has way many destinations than air india
 
Bailout is required when the existing liquid reserves of the country are not enough to make the interest/principal payments against the outstanding loans that a country has taken from the world bodies. That is what happened with Pakistan in 2008 when it was forced to accept stringent IMF bailout when its traditional allys failed to come up with a friendly load/aid.

The situation you refer to in India is more of execution than of availability of funds. At the time of bailout, Pakistan's reserves were a piddly $2.5 billion. Compare that with the existing number of $280 billion for India. Even if you factor in the size of the country, India's per capita reserves were almost 15 times that of Pakistan's in 2008

What I am referring to is the scale of investments India and Pakistan need to address their infrastructure, healthcare, education, and basic needs of the people. To me, it's a bailout of the vast population of South Asia's poor, hungry and illiterate people who are suffering because of lack of investment.

There is no real economic definition of bailout. The term originated in the flying parlance referring to a pilot bailing out of a crashing air plane to save his or her life.

IMF usually gets involved as a lender of last resort to help prevent sovereign defaults. What happened in Pakistan was a liquidity crisis that can happen anywhere when there are significant exogenous shocks such as dramatic rise in oil and food prices.

Pakistan's problem was compounded by the change in government coinciding with the oil price shock to which the new government did not react fast enough. It failed to follow through on a planned privatization of several public enterprises to raise billions of dollars in a timely manner before the global financial meltdown hit in 2008.

Read here to understand it: http://www.riazhaq.com/2010/03/pakistans-economy-review-2008-2010.html

Some of the strongest and smartest financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, the creator of BRIC and N11 concept, also needed to be bailed out in the US because of that crisis.

Strong Asian Tiger economies faced the same issues in 1997, a crisis which was precipitated by currency traders. IMF had to come to their rescue.

The G7 nation of UK needed it in 1976, and may need it yet again. Greece is in trouble right now seeking a much bigger bailout in terms of percent of its GDP than Pakistan needed.

In reality, no country is immune from these types of crises, with the possible exception of US which controls the world's biggest reserve and trade currency. So there is no need to be smug about it. That's the reason why IMF was set up and it continues to exist.

Confidence is a fragile thing, and economies run on confidence. It can change for the slightest of reasons.
 
Last edited:
ok by airlines PIA is better than AIR INDIA . people of india dont even support air india anymore they say its crappy but as on other side people have been really supporting pia and it actually made profits in 2009 and it has way many destinations than air india

Congrats for PIA making profits in 2009.

But saying PIA is better than AI because ppl say it is crappy...is only one side of the story. We Indians are spoilt for choice....we have 10 full fledged airlines in India...out of which Kingfisher and Jet Airways are considered one of the worlds best. So when we call AI crappy, our benchmark is set way high than PIA.

If you look at numbers, even Jet Airways' fleet (89) is larger than PIA (40), Airblue (12) & Shaheen (12) put together.
 
ok by airlines PIA is better than AIR INDIA . people of india dont even support air india anymore they say its crappy but as on other side people have been really supporting pia and it actually made profits in 2009 and it has way many destinations than air india

PIA is not in profit but its losses are increasing day by day. The 2009 profit news turned out to be false, it was confirmed.

Profit_and_Loss_Graph_for_PIA_Pakistan.jpg


And stop telling us which airline is supported which is not. There is no statistic to validate that claim.
 
What I am referring to is the scale of investments India and Pakistan need to address their infrastructure, healthcare, education, and basic needs of the people. To me, it's a bailout of the vast population of South Asia's poor, hungry and illiterate people who are suffering because of lack of investment.

There is no real economic definition of bailout. The term originated in the flying parlance referring to a pilot bailing out of a crashing air plane to save his or her life.

IMF usually gets involved as a lender of last resort to help prevent sovereign defaults. What happened in Pakistan was a liquidity crisis that can happen anywhere when there are significant exogenous shocks such as dramatic rise in oil and food prices.

Pakistan's problem was compounded by the change in government coinciding with the oil price shock to which the new government did not react fast enough. It failed to follow through on a planned privatization of several public enterprises to raise billions of dollars in a timely manner before the global financial meltdown hit in 2008.

Read here to understand it: Haq's Musings: Pakistan's Economic Performance 2008-2010

Some of the strongest and smartest financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, the creator of BRIC and N11 concept, also needed to be bailed out in the US because of that crisis.

Strong Asian Tiger economies faced the same issues in 1997, a crisis which was precipitated by currency traders. IMF had to come to their rescue.

The G7 nation of UK needed it in 1976, and may need it yet again. Greece is in trouble right now seeking a much bigger bailout in terms of percent of its GDP than Pakistan needed.

In reality, no country is immune from these types of crises, with the possible exception of US which controls the world's biggest reserve and trade currency. So there is no need to be smug about it. That's the reason why IMF was set up and it continues to exist.

Confidence is a fragile thing, and economies run on confidence. It can change for the slightest of reasons.


Agree with whole of your post, specially the bold part.. Though wasnt trying to be smug in my post.
 
People are getting the BASICS wrong.

India does not get GRANT AID like Pakistan does from USA or any other country.

Grant Aid is for USA allies who need financial assistance beit military or industrial help. eg Israel

If india does get grant aid please confirm by whom.

Who is going to give aid free money to india which has a $1.2 trillion dollar GDP growing at nearly 8% a year even in recession.

Soft loans is the term given to chinease loans to help PAF but 42 Thunders last year.

Never herd the term before that..
 
People are getting the BASICS wrong.

India does not get GRANT AID like Pakistan does from USA or any other country.

Grant Aid is for USA allies who need financial assistance beit military or industrial help. eg Israel

If india does get grant aid please confirm by whom.

Who is going to give aid free money to india which has a $1.2 trillion dollar GDP growing at nearly 8% a year even in recession.

Soft loans is the term given to chinease loans to help PAF but 42 Thunders last year.

Never herd the term before that..

International development aid is one part of the UK budget unlikely to be cut in a squeeze on public finances. But questions are being asked about how aid is used, and which countries need it. India last year got almost £300m from the UK, some of it spent on toilets in the country's financial capital, Mumbai.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8569174.stm

According to Japan's ministry of finance, India has received $33 billion in soft loans and a billion dollars in grants from Japan since 1997. In 2008, Japan gave India $2.5 billion in soft loans, and $5 million in grants. By contrast, Pakistan has received $10 billion in soft loans, and $2.3 billion in grants from Japan since 1999. In 2008, Japan gave Pakistan $500 million in soft loans and $63 million in grants.

After the increase of British aid to $500 million (300 million pounds) a year, India will still remain the biggest recipient of Japan's official development assistance (ODA) in the near future. In 2008, Japan's ODA to India was up by more than 18% compared to 2007 at Rs 6916 crore (Rs 69.16 billion).

Haq's Musings: Foreign Aid Continues to Pour in Resurgent India
 
Last edited:
International development aid is one part of the UK budget unlikely to be cut in a squeeze on public finances. But questions are being asked about how aid is used, and which countries need it. India last year got almost £300m from the UK, some of it spent on toilets in the country's financial capital, Mumbai.

BBC News - Should the UK fund toilets in Mumbai slums?

According to Japan's ministry of finance, India has received $33 billion in soft loans and a billion dollars in grants from Japan since 1997. In 2008, Japan gave India $2.5 billion in soft loans, and $5 million in grants. By contrast, Pakistan has received $10 billion in soft loans, and $2.3 billion in grants from Japan since 1999. In 2008, Japan gave Pakistan $500 million in soft loans and $63 million in grants.

1. India got Soft Loans USD 2.5 Billion : Pakistan got USD 5 Billion. Being One-Seventh the Size of India to be Equal Pakistan should have received about USD 0.35 Billion - in other Words Pakistan got Soft Loans which equate to 15 Times received by India as per the comparison of the respective sizes!

After the increase of British aid to $500 million (300 million pounds) a year, India will still remain the biggest recipient of Japan's official development assistance (ODA) in the near future. In 2008, Japan's ODA to India was up by more than 18% compared to 2007 at Rs 6916 crore (Rs 69.16 billion).

2. Again Size for size i.e. on a Per Capita Basis India has received far less evidently than say Pakistan.

 
1. India got Soft Loans USD 2.5 Billion : Pakistan got USD 5 Billion. Being One-Seventh the Size of India to be Equal Pakistan should have received about USD 0.35 Billion - in other Words Pakistan got Soft Loans which equate to 15 Times received by India as per the comparison of the respective sizes!



2. Again Size for size i.e. on a Per Capita Basis India has received far less evidently than say Pakistan.

First, please read carfully what I wrote, and comprehend it rather than distorting it. It was a respose to correct another person, presumably Indian, falsely claiming that India receives no soft loans and no grants from any one.

Second, look at the numbers again. Visit the links I gave you.

In 2008, Japan gave India $2.5 billion in soft loans, and $5 million in grants. In the same year, Japan gave Pakistan $500 million in soft loans and $63 million in grants.

Haq's Musings: Foreign Aid Continues to Pour in Resurgent India

http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/oda/region/sw_asia/india_o.pdf

http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/oda/region/sw_asia/pakistan_o.pdf
 
International development aid is one part of the UK budget unlikely to be cut in a squeeze on public finances. But questions are being asked about how aid is used, and which countries need it. India last year got almost £300m from the UK, some of it spent on toilets in the country's financial capital, Mumbai.

BBC News - Should the UK fund toilets in Mumbai slums?

According to Japan's ministry of finance, India has received $33 billion in soft loans and a billion dollars in grants from Japan since 1997. In 2008, Japan gave India $2.5 billion in soft loans, and $5 million in grants. By contrast, Pakistan has received $10 billion in soft loans, and $2.3 billion in grants from Japan since 1999. In 2008, Japan gave Pakistan $500 million in soft loans and $63 million in grants.

After the increase of British aid to $500 million (300 million pounds) a year, India will still remain the biggest recipient of Japan's official development assistance (ODA) in the near future. In 2008, Japan's ODA to India was up by more than 18% compared to 2007 at Rs 6916 crore (Rs 69.16 billion).

Haq's Musings: Foreign Aid Continues to Pour in Resurgent India

Here we go again.

As the "Grand Master of Disinformation" you have given the figures for India since 1997 and Pakistan since 1999.

Still here is the comparison :

India Received USD 33 Billion in Soft Loans whereas Paksitan received USD 10 Billion. To be equal being One-Seventh in Size Pakistan should have received about USD 4.7 Billion. Thus roughly speaking Pakistan has received over Twice the amount of Soft Loans as India on a Per Capita Basis!

Now to Grants : India has received a Billion US Dollars as compared to Pakistan having received USD 2.5 Billion. As such Pakistan has received 17.5 Times the Grant that India has received on a Per Capita Basis.

I now look at the 2008 Figures :

In 2008, Japan gave India $2.5 billion in soft loans compared to Pakistan receiving $500 million in soft loans.

Can you not appreciate that with One Seventh the Size Pakistan got One Fifth the Loans as compared to India. Thus again Pakistan received more on a Per Capita basis than India.

Now to Grants : India received Grant of USD 5 Million whereas Pakistan received USD 63 Million. Thus Paksitan with One-Seventh the Population has received 12.6 Times as compared to India which equates to over 88 Times on a Per Capita Basis!

Mr. Riaz Haq : You Musings are not even Amusing anymore!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom