Pakistan drugged out on defense & debt

[ares]

This should put things into perspective from an annual budget standpoint:
How Countries Spend Their Money -

In terms of GDP spend, Pakistan is 2% for health and for education its 2.9% compared to India's 4.9% and 3.2% respectively
WHO | Pakistan
WHO | India

Education - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2206rank.html

Suffice it to say, neither is in the top tier of excessive over-spend, nor are they in a category which is rightly spending more money on these two development indices.

Date even from 5 years ago makes little difference as Pakistan has not changed in either direction by a whole point or more.

So the conclusion is that Pakistan is by no means a security state, any which way you look at it.

I don' get your point the " How countries spend their money article " you gave ..is quoting figures as a % of budgetary spending an not GDP..as of now 60 % of Pakistani union budget is used on defence + debt financing.

WHO article figures quoted are 5yr old...same for the CIA figure which is from 2008.

Infact this not the first time ..I am hearing these numbers(2% for health+ education for FY 2010-11) ..I heard it in one of your talk shows( from your economist Hafeez Pasha)..unfortunately I can not trace that video.

 

[blain2]

You do realize they are quoting CIA fact book figures..did you bother reading what figure CIA has quoted?

And CIA figures are problematic for what reasons? Its just a general discussion. Spends won't be off by a point or more in such publications.

There are established democracies around the world that spend more on defence and less on education/health than Pakistan. So lets go back to the earlier claim of "Pakistan is a security state" and back peddle on that as that would be the right thing to do.

I am out of this one.

 

[ares]

ares, I am going to go your way now. This is what indexmundi is claiming. At least provide latest figures and not mere conjectures. If you think that it's claiming something wrong, do provide sources that contradict that.

Man you are funny ..indexmundi itself calming the data it has for 2011 is from 2008.. check the date of information columns.

Don't be in such a hurry ..atleast read you own source..don't be in such a panic state.

 

[ares]

And CIA figures are problematic for what reasons? Its just a general discussion. Spends won't be off by a point or more in such publications.

There are established democracies around the world that spend more on defence and less on education/health than Pakistan. So lets go back to the earlier claim of "Pakistan is a security state" and back peddle on that as that would be the right thing to do.

I am out of this one.

For a simple fact it is outdated ..from 2008.
As far Pakistan being a national security state(nothing wrong in being one) and not social security one is well established fact..many of your own columnist have reinforced this point over the years.

 

[SMC]

Man you are funny ..indexmundi itself calming the data it has for 2011 is from 2008.. check the date of information columns.

Don't be in such a hurry ..atleast read you own source..don't be in such a panic state.

Funny man ares. Listen, come back when you have a reliable source for your assertion. Otherwise, don't talk. Just putting up a number up there and asking someone to disprove it is a mere conjecture. We don't even know which year's figures this article is talking about, let alone a source for the figure.

 

[SMC]

For a simple fact it is outdated ..from 2008.
As far Pakistan being a national security state(nothing wrong in being one) and not social security one is well established fact..many of your own columnist have reinforced this point over the years.

But as I said, can you come up with a reliable source that says that Pakistan's education spending has dropped to 1.5%? The figures in 2009 were 2.7% according to UN.

As for the second part, no it's not a well established fact. LOL

Pakistani columnists saying so doesn't make it so. There's plenty of Pakistan-hating Pakistani columnists out there. What they say means very little. The facts and figures show otherwise.

 

[ares]

But as I said, can you come up with a reliable source that says that Pakistan's education spending has dropped to 1.5%? The figures in 2009 were 2.7% according to UN.

As for the second part, no it's not a well established fact. LOL

Pakistani columnists saying so doesn't make it so. There's plenty of Pakistan-hating Pakistani columnists out there. What they say means very little. The facts and figures show otherwise.

This source is reliable enough ..there is no reason for it to be unreliable.

Find out parameters of a national security state ie state spending on security (not just defence) exceeding that of social development sectors and copmpare them..if you can't I ll help you ..but not now.

 

[SMC]

This source is reliable enough ..there is no reason for it to be unreliable.

It has proven to be unreliable going by its history in the past.

Besides, it's not an organization that comes up with such numbers. It has to get its numbers from somewhere. That "somewhere" is what you have to find, otherwise these numbers can't be taken seriously.

Find out parameters of a national security state ie state spending on security (not just defence) exceeding that of social development sectors and copmpare them..if you can't I ll help you ..but not now.

Nah, it doesn't exceed, not by a long shot. And we're in a state of war right now, so if it can't exceed even in war time, then your assertion looks quite silly.

 

[ares]

It has proven to be unreliable going by its history in the past.

Besides, it's not an organization that comes up with such numbers. It has to get its numbers from somewhere. That "somewhere" is what you have to find, otherwise these numbers can't be taken seriously.



Nah, it doesn't exceed, not by a long shot. And we're in a state of war right now, so if it can't exceed even in war time, then your assertion looks quite silly.

Thats why I am saying, write to the editor of the paper yourself and ask him for a source ...or prove that the numbers are fudged..but untill you can do either..it remains is reliable source...no point in being in constant denial.

As for your second point..it is not margin which decides the difference between the two but the actual spending which does.

 

[SMC]

LOLOL

ares, you need to learn what being in denial means.

No one goes and asks an editor for the source.

Editor themself needs to provide sources without asking the very first time the article is published. You're throwing up conjectures. I don't have to prove the numbers are fudged, the article author/editor has to prove that the numbers are reliable. Until then, article can't be taken seriously. That's how it's always done, remember.

As far as spending is concerned, yes I am talking about spending, not margin.

 

[ares]

LOLOL

ares, you need to learn what being in denial means.

No one goes and asks an editor for the source.

Editor themself needs to provide sources without asking the very first time the article is published. You're throwing up conjectures. I don't have to prove the numbers are fudged, the article author/editor has to prove that the numbers are reliable. Until then, article can't be taken seriously. That's how it's always done, remember.

As far as spending is concerned, yes I am talking about spending, not margin.

I don't know what kind newspaper you are reading ..but no newspaper does what you are saying...either prove them that they are fudged or move on.
This article remains a source..untill proved otherwise.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of it, you don't have a point..but your ego can not take the hit of loosing another debate.

 

[SMC]

Losing debate?

LOL ares, learn to debate first. I am losing debate? If we're to go by how debates are done, you've already lost it. I have far more experience in this than you'll ever have.

No newspaper does what you're saying? Newspapers frequently print false information.

Again, I don't need to prove that they're printing fudged information. That's not how it's done. They haven't provided any source for their claim. That's what need to happen first. It remains a source only to you. Remember, you have to prove your assertion first. The other party doesn't have to prove your assertion wrong. Keep throwing conjectures and digging a deeper hole for yourself.

 

[ares]

Losing debate?

LOL ares, learn to debate first. I am losing debate? If we're to go by how debates are done, you've already lost it. I have far more experience in this than you'll ever have.

No newspaper does what you're saying? Newspapers frequently print false information.

Again, I don't need to prove that they're printing fudged information. That's not how it's done. They haven't provided any source for their claim. That's what need to happen first. It remains a source only to you. Remember, you have to prove your assertion first. The other party doesn't have to prove your assertion wrong. Keep throwing conjectures and digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Man you are sore loser ..I ll tell you one more time ..if you don't trust these numbers ..prove that they are wrong or move on ...and do show news paper which quotes the source for its numbers.

 

[SMC]

You're getting frustrated now. I am just doing what needs to be done as far as these numbers are concerned. You're the sore loser, lol.

As far as me having to prove the numbers, I'll copy paste myself because I already discussed that.

Again, I don't need to prove that they're printing fudged information. That's not how it's done. They haven't provided any source for their claim. That's what need to happen first. It remains a source only to you. Remember, you have to prove your assertion first. The other party doesn't have to prove your assertion wrong.

If something isn't established through previous proof then newspapers always provide sources. Can you find a reliable source that has these numbers? If not, then get lost. You've lost, move on.

 

[SMC]

Hey ares, I've had contact with aliens recently. Now go prove that claim wrong. LOL