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
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.
