What's new

Pakistan poised to become fast growing economy: WB

Start a thread on how PURE pakistan is and we can discuss that. Nagging like an Indian wife is not what this discussion is about :D
As i said no corruption exist in pakistan .......as far as nagging is concern its pretty much clear who is nagging about so called fudged GDP

They dont need to ...Top Indian and world economists have themselves stated the obvious.

Also the IMF and World Bank NOT stating anything doesn't mean that fudging data hasn't happened.

Lets not dance around the issue to satisfy ourselves and learn to accept facts as they are.

Also "accusations" are not judgements ..lets talk about solid facts.. Indian RBI governor has accepted and said "Don't count too much into the growth figures" - Simple Admission of facts.

These are a TOP INDIAN ECONOMISTS words not some Pakistani that you all find so hard to digest :)

Ok india GDP is fuged ......now sleep peacfuly
 
As i said no corruption exist in pakistan .......as far as nagging is concern its pretty much clear who is nagging about so called fudged GDP



Ok india GDP is fuged ......now sleep peacfuly

Basically it is the mistake of world bank and imf.They have to ask pakistani's and chinese opinion before publishing indian gdp figures.
 
Really ??...then maybe you should commit suicide as we were ONLY mentioned in a report but IMF actually sent a team of INVESTIGATORS to investigate your new GDP calculation phenomena :D

Can you setup a webcam before you set your pyre on fire ??

Not to mention that this "DISHONOUR" was a result of all the "FUDGING NEWS" in the Indian Media - Backed by none other than Raghuram Rajan :d

IMF to examine India’s ‘puzzling’ growth data
Will send an experts’ team this week to ascertain CSO’s figures

By: Arun S | Washington | April 20, 2015 10:28 AM

IMF.jpg

The IMF will also be looking to obtain more ‘back-casted’ historical data in addition to ‘forecasted’ data on the basis of the new methodology used by the Central Statistics Office.

Terming India’s recently revised gross domestic product (GDP) growth data as “puzzling” and prima facie one with “discrepancies”, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said it will send a team of its statistics experts to New Delhi this week to better understand the new methodology of calculation and ensure the data is error-free.

The IMF will also be looking to obtain more ‘back-casted’ historical data in addition to ‘forecasted’ data on the basis of the new methodology used by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) so that it can find out India’s potential output and thereby forecast the country’s medium-term growth rate.

Paul Cashin, IMF Mission chief for India, told FE: “We are seeing discrepancies or puzzles regarding some of the high frequency data. It has become a problem not just for us, but for the Indian finance ministry, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and all entities using the data.”
Besides, the IMF team will give its suggestions on the new Consumer Price Index (CPI) based inflation data and the methodology of its calculation (base year was shifted from 2004-05 to 2011-12 and weights of many food and non-food items were changed). The RBI has made CPI, instead of wholesale price index, the key factor in monetary policy decisions.
Epic Fail.:lol:

The news reports about IMF team coming to India to analyse new GDP record turned Out to be fake:

“In response to a longstanding request from the CSO and Ministry of Finance, a team from the IMF’s Statistics Department visited New Delhi during April 22 to May 5,” an IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice said.

The team reviewed the methodology of the new GDP estimates and provided guidance on back-casting the series so that a longer revised series is made available to users.

The Central Statistical Office (CSO) of India released revised estimates of GDP in January 2015. The estimates are compiled according to the guidelines of the 2008 System of National Accounts and the base year was updated to 2011-12 from 2004-05.

Moreover, the GDP estimates incorporate new source data and modified compilation techniques.

“The team’s visit was part of the IMF’s regular programme of providing technical assistance to member countries for capacity building. Reports about the team auditing India’s newly adopted GDP methodology were incorrect,” Rice said.

India gets IMF help on ‘back-casting’ of new GDP data | Samachar : World's No.1 News Portal : Samachar English News
 
Dude you have issues follow up with those people who have fudged your data or Mr. Raghuram. I'm neither the source of your data fudging nor responsible for it.

Remember, always shoot the message NOT the messenger.



As i said no corruption exist in pakistan .......as far as nagging is concern its pretty much clear who is nagging about so called fudged GDP



Ok india GDP is fuged ......now sleep peacfuly

Well in that case follow up with your media.

But as is usually the case, after the media reports the truth it is forced to recant its stories after pressure of the "faith in india brigade".

But I like your attempt to refute me however the TEAM still came to India regarding GDP should be a matter of death for those Indians who termed a mere report of revenue mistatement a matter of honour.

I mean for him/her this is a matter of "ripped hymen" ...hahahahaha

Epic Fail.:lol:

The news reports about IMF team coming to India to analyse new GDP record turned Out to be fake:



India gets IMF help on ‘back-casting’ of new GDP data | Samachar : World's No.1 News Portal : Samachar English News
 
Well in that case follow up with your media.

But as is usually the case, after the media reports the truth it is forced to recant its stories after pressure of the "faith in india brigade".

But I like your attempt to refute me however the TEAM still came to India regarding GDP should be a matter of death for those Indians who termed a mere report of revenue mistatement a matter of honour.

I mean for him/her this is a matter of "ripped hymen" ...hahahahaha

Looks like you suffer from a serious case of comprehension issues.The media did not retract it's statement but none other than IMFs spokesperson Gerry Rice blew their claims into bin:

Reports about the team auditing India’s newly adopted GDP methodology were incorrect,” Rice said.

Also the team came on India's request.

“In response to a longstanding request from the CSO and Ministry of Finance, a team from the IMF’s Statistics Department visited New Delhi during April 22 to May 5,” an IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice said.
 
Dude you ever bothered to read the full article which your mentioning before wasting my time with meaningless banter??

If you want to get down to the details then this is what he said "their is nothing wrong broadly" which means its still "not entirely" right as a day earlier he has already stated that "we should be careful in the way we count GDP" ...so where is the refutation ??

So the argument was never about the new numbers but rather about how data was fudged and Rajan has himself admitted it up there without any refutations.

Plus i have posted 2 articles referencing INDIAN economists including the economist who sets your interest rates proving the same thing ? ..What part of this do you not understand ?

So you just want to type whatever you feel like simply because it suits you ?? and your ego cant handle this because Im Pakistani ??

Grow up man !

And dont waste my time until you have some proper refutations to what I post.

Rajan was talking to some university students about problems with measuring GDP...period....not this particular GVA vs factor cost debate (which you probably dont understand to begin with).

The theoretical problem he brought up (double counting social cost) would register independently of the method used...he was simply telling the students to be aware of the limitations of GDP to begin with and to always remember its simply an estimate.

He himself said (I will post it again since you are an idiot) that he has no issue with the new way it is counted compared to the old way:

Never doubted new GDP numbers, says Raghuram Rajan - timesofindia-economictimes

Rajan Quote:
It was not anything about new GDP numbers or the way GDP is calculated.
 
Yes India's request was also outstanding BUT they also came to learn of the new fudged GDP method which is why the trip materialized now. NOT so long ago :D

Which according to your own link was also questioned by your parliamentary committee.

I assume me, raghuram rajan the parliamentary committee and the IMF all have comprehension issues ..right ?? :D


Looks like you suffer from a serious case of comprehension issues.The media did not retract it's statement but none other than IMFs spokesperson Gerry Rice blew their claims into bin:



Also the team came on India's request.

“In response to a longstanding request from the CSO and Ministry of Finance, a team from the IMF’s Statistics Department visited New Delhi during April 22 to May 5,” an IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice said.
 
Yes India's request was also outstanding BUT they also came to learn of the new fudged GDP method which is why the trip materialized now. NOT so long ago :D

Which according to your own link was also questioned by your parliamentary committee.

I assume me, raghuram rajan the parliamentary committee and the IMF all have comprehension issues ..right ?? :D
Looks like in addition to comprehension issues your IQ is also less than 50.
IMF teams via its every country to coordinate with data collection.

As for your claim on Rajan's comment they have already been busted by @Nilgiri in the post above yours
 
I assume me, raghuram rajan the parliamentary committee and the IMF all have comprehension issues ..right ?? :D

You do realise this "fudging" you are going on about is a method encouraged by the IMF under their SNA 2008 standards?

Becoming SNA 2008 compliant is not fudging.

Come back when you read about some basic economics and what the difference between factor cost and GVA is and how India CMOS went about incorporating it and continues to revise and improve it.
 
I know they visit every country to sort out issues like this or to collect data !. whats wrong with killing two birds with one stone ??

Did you not read the article properly ??

Do you even understand the issue at hand or you merely throwing terms out like "SNA 2008" to impress or cast an impression on me ??

This is not a third rate bollywood movie where all of a sudden you land in like an unruly hero to take care of every contingency, with your breast-hair propping out of your collar and you bend over and you can probably see the crack in his a$$, yet all the time hoping to impress the damsel in distress scenario - so grow up :D

This is ECONOMICS dear and the issue is not with standards like SNA2008 rather the DATA ...You know what DATA you used in computing your GDP figures according to SNA 2008.

You never used proper data but rather PROJECTIONS which is what the main contention is and which is what the IMF came down to "understand" as they were "puzzled" at your MARVELOUS understanding and better yet implementation of that understanding in computing your figures...:omghaha:

You know India produces millions of graduates in every subject who claim to be educated but in reality only 10% are employable only barely. The reason being educated-idiotness :D

I think im chatting to one right now !

comprendo ??

Looks like in addition to comprehension issues your IQ is also less than 50.
IMF teams via its every country to coordinate with data collection.

As for your claim on Rajan's comment they have already been busted by @Nilgiri in the post above yours

You do realise this "fudging" you are going on about is a method encouraged by the IMF under their SNA 2008 standards?

Becoming SNA 2008 compliant is not fudging.

Come back when you read about some basic economics and what the difference between factor cost and GVA is and how India CMOS went about incorporating it and continues to revise and improve it.

another one....did ANY of you EVEN BOTHER as much as to READ THE freaking article !!

The issue is not with the STANDARD but rather the DATA USED in the STandard

Holly shit - the level of sheer stupidity makes me feel im talking to a bunch of m0r0ns !!
 
I know they visit every country to sort out issues like this or to collect data !. whats wrong with killing two birds with one stone ??

Did you not read the article properly ??

Do you even understand the issue at hand or you merely throwing terms out like "SNA 2008" to impress or cast an impression on me ??

This is not a third rate bollywood movie where all of a sudden you land in like an unruly hero to take care of every contingency, with your breast-hair propping out of your collar and you bend over and you can probably see the crack in his a$$, yet all the time hoping to impress the damsel in distress scenario - so grow up :D

This is ECONOMICS dear and the issue is not with standards like SNA2008 rather the DATA ...You know what DATA you used in computing your GDP figures according to SNA 2008.

You never used proper data but rather PROJECTIONS which is what the main contention is and which is what the IMF came down to "understand" as they were "puzzled" at your MARVELOUS understanding and better yet implementation of that understanding in computing your figures...:omghaha:

You know India produces millions of graduates in every subject who claim to be educated but in reality only 10% are employable only barely. The reason being educated-idiotness :D

I think im chatting to one right now !

comprendo ??





another one....did ANY of you EVEN BOTHER as much as to READ THE freaking article !!

The issue is not with the STANDARD but rather the DATA USED in the STandard

Holly shit - the level of sheer stupidity makes me feel im talking to a bunch of m0r0ns !!

Ok so you have no knowledge of economics, neither no desire to read up on it.

Seems I have gotten to you since you are now bringing up bollywood, foul language and what not.

You are a 20 post noob, so I have no intention of continuing any further exchange with someone thats probably 15 years old.

The issue is not with the STANDARD but rather the DATA USED in the STandard

And pray tell me how the methodology for the data set used for GVA is different from that for factor cost? They both rely on the exact same survey acquisition process from the same economic data units. If anything GVA uses a much higher sample cluster frequency (if you even bothered to check...but thats too much to ask of a teenager) so its actually more precise from a statistical standpoint. The IMF sent a team to review and certify the whole process. Compared to Pakistan Bureau of statistics (which tried to change the base year, then retracted it when data ended up looking bad), CMOS is professionally run and highly trusted by world organisations and banks.

The actual crux of the debate (which you seem to have no idea about) is something completely different to the "data".

Anyways since you have ignored all the threads from before that talk in depth about this very issue, its really a big waste of time going all over this again for the likes of one individual (you).

All the people who's opinion is worth something in this forum on the matter + neutrals can easily refer to those threads for the cold hard factual discussion and debate. Convincing one puny extremely biased ninny on the matter is not worth the effort.
 
Some of the main contentions towards this GDP fudge According to SNA 2008 idiotically used "tax companies bought under the tax collection net as a percentage of REVENUE GROWTH for the services sector ":omghaha:

Someone needs to tell these SNA2008- wannabees that measuring the speed of tax revenue recovery does not equate to REVENUE GROWTH in the Services sector.

It takes a special m0r0n to make that call - a very special m0r0n - The indians just did that and yet claim data figures are not fudged among other things :D
 
Some of the main contentions towards this GDP fudge According to SNA 2008 idiotically used "tax companies bought under the tax collection net as a percentage of REVENUE GROWTH for the services sector ":omghaha:

Someone needs to tell these SNA2008- wannabees that measuring the speed of tax revenue recovery does not equate to REVENUE GROWTH in the Services sector.

It takes a special m0r0n to make that call - a very special m0r0n - The indians just did that and yet claim data figures are not fudged among other things :D

Please provide the link to where you are getting this from. Its tough understanding your posts verbatim.
 
Some of the main contentions towards this GDP fudge According to SNA 2008 idiotically used "tax companies bought under the tax collection net as a percentage of REVENUE GROWTH for the services sector ":omghaha:

Someone needs to tell these SNA2008- wannabees that measuring the speed of tax revenue recovery does not equate to REVENUE GROWTH in the Services sector.

It takes a special m0r0n to make that call - a very special m0r0n - The indians just did that and yet claim data figures are not fudged among other things :D
LMAO.
SNA 2008 has been endorsed by Harvard economists.But of course retard bhaijan know more than Harvard scholars.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jo...yer_productivity_and_national_accounts_3_.pdf


China, EU, USA have all endorsed SNA 2008.Now all of them must be fudging data too.It's not our fault that Pakistan's low quality and third grade economists haven't adopted SNA 2008.

China data revision lifts GDP by $308bn - FT.com

Anyways the only thing fudged here is your weak brain.
 
Last edited:
Maybe for you the number of posts is a matter of pride much like the mere mention accusation of a being a data fudge in an IMF report is a case of lost virginity thereby warranting suicide - But not for me :)

I have slightly different standards and better things to worry about in life, than to be worried about lied perpetrated under fancy terms to sound ECONOMICAL.

Oh and mere mention of bollywood is not profanity, it is an attempt to make one understand in the simplest of terms using media as a common base - But anyhow, I know that might be a bit out of your mental level where the best comeback you have to my posts is the justification of your "Greatness" over the number of posts and nothing else :).

Now getting back to the topic.

The survey aquisition process and the higher sample is exactly part of the problem, let me show you how :

1. For instance to extract a higher sample, a new category called “quasi-corporates” was introduced in the new series to capture that segment of household enterprises which are unincorporated but maintain accounts. The savings of this set of firms is then imputed based on survey data. But in the absence of detailed balance sheet data, such imputations are not credible, this has already been ratified by K.G.K. Subbarao, a former RBI official, you can check his article in an Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) article published in May. Besides, “the partial set of data available from the surveys does not exactly fit the definition conceived in the SNA 2008”, . This is according to his statement.

2. Similarly, i already mentioned this in a previous post but the use of service tax as a proxy for growth of certain services, and the use of growth rates of the organized manufacturing industry to estimate growth for unorganized manufacturing could potentially be over-estimating growth. After all, the growth in service tax partly reflects tax deepening (as new services are brought under the tax net) and does not accurately capture tax buoyancy.

The assumption that unorganized manufacturing is growing at the same rate as organized manufacturing appears unrealistic. There is evidence to show that unorganized manufacturing has not kept pace with the growth of organized manufacturing over the past few years.

Now the CSO tries to use the most current indicators of growth where available BUT there ARE NO ANNUAL SURVEYS.

Here is a Quote from Ashish Kumar the Director general of CSO (can be googled) :“If we have annual surveys such as annual survey of services, we can use the survey data to compute growth. But in the absence of such surveys, we have to rely on proxies such as tax data.”

3. THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ASPECT :

The most controversial aspect of the new series relates to the estimates for the corporate sector, and the use of a new methodology to arrive at these estimates. As reported by indian paper the Mint on 2 April, methodological changes at the eleventh hour inflated the final estimates of corporate sector growth.

The earlier series derived the corporate sector estimates based on a sample survey of companies conducted by RBI. This sample consisted of only a few thousand companies, and hence the estimates were blown up (or multiplied) in proportion to the coverage of the paid-up capital of sample companies to the total number of companies registered with the ministry of company affairs (MCA). The problem with such estimation lay in blowing up the sample estimates because it was widely noted that many companies which are registered with MCA are inactive, or are shell companies, or they do not file returns.

4. A sub-committee was formed to examine and recommend or discard the use of the "New Database" and they recommended to use the new database MCA-21, to construct the new GDP series. But instead of using the estimates generated from the database directly, as agreed upon by the sub-committee, CSO scaled up even these estimates to account for non-reporting companies, which had declared returns in earlier years.

This was done on the advice of an advisory committee. - Who runs this committee "Modi Sarkar" ??

This change has been questioned by an independent member of the sub-committee, R. Nagaraj, economist and professor at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai being one of them.

And I can go on and on ....but for your level. Can you refute these discrepancies from the sources that I have listed ??

Ok so you have no knowledge of economics, neither no desire to read up on it.

Seems I have gotten to you since you are now bringing up bollywood, foul language and what not.

You are a 20 post noob, so I have no intention of continuing any further exchange with someone thats probably 15 years old.



And pray tell me how the methodology for the data set used for GVA is different from that for factor cost? They both rely on the exact same survey acquisition process from the same economic data units. If anything GVA uses a much higher sample cluster frequency (if you even bothered to check...but thats too much to ask of a teenager) so its actually more precise from a statistical standpoint. The IMF sent a team to review and certify the whole process. Compared to Pakistan Bureau of statistics (which tried to change the base year, then retracted it when data ended up looking bad), CMOS is professionally run and highly trusted by world organisations and banks.

The actual crux of the debate (which you seem to have no idea about) is something completely different to the "data".

Anyways since you have ignored all the threads from before that talk in depth about this very issue, its really a big waste of time going all over this again for the likes of one individual (you).

All the people who's opinion is worth something in this forum on the matter + neutrals can easily refer to those threads for the cold hard factual discussion and debate. Convincing one puny extremely biased ninny on the matter is not worth the effort.

Yes the bhaijan has no issues with the standard but with those countries who cant use good enough data to put the standard to good use :D

I guess you need Harvard Graduates at every level of the collection process to make sense out of fudged Indian statistics data.

The Indian graduated idi0ts are just not good enough as it is ...lol

LMAO.
SNA 2008 has been endorsed by Harvard economists.But of course retard bhaijan know more than Harvard scholars.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jo...yer_productivity_and_national_accounts_3_.pdf


China, EU, USA have all endorsed SNA 2008.Now all of them must be fudging data too.It's not our fault that Pakistan's low quality and third grade economists haven't adopted SNA 2008.

China data revision lifts GDP by $308bn - FT.com

Anyways the only thing fudged here is your weak brain.
 
Back
Top Bottom