Pakistan poised to become fast growing economy: WB

[Nilgiri]

Its not about whats better its about which one to use. Cost factor valuation is always lower than Market Price and has less inconsistencies caused by the infusion of taxes and subsidiaries.

If it was so bad then the rest of the world wouldnt have had it as a standard up until not to long ago.



So you are admitting that they're have been reports of inconsistencies with the tax reporting mechanism which the critics are crying about.

You tell me, if i file a FAKE tax return which according to you is a "quality" issue, then how are resultant GVA figures going to be accurate ??

Does this make sense to you ??

BUddy stick with me and i will drill down to enough details to make you accept all the things I've said. It may not be in one go as I have a life outside of defence.pk as well, but what i like even better is getting down to the truth

Read up on MCA-21, the database has had serious issues keeping up with tax returns that never reached them while filed electronically and even through the mailing system. Primarily because this newly created database has had software bugs due to the 90 % unemployable idiots trying there hands on it. - but thats a story for another day and the less said about the Indian postal service the better. But both of those topics are another debate.

So, so far what he have seen is that everything from the "quality" to the "filing" of the tax returns has been rightfully questioned by the critics to be a problematic area for major concern in concluding the value add figures as you just stated.

So then my question is, in good conscience, doesnt it make sense to have an improved system running in place before making the move to a standard that more heavily relies on data from it ??

India tries to emulate OECD and western countries BUT you need to have processes and infrastructure in place wont get you there.

This is one of the reasons why guys like raghuram and other critics dont trust the numbers above and on top of the fact that many of the tax returns CSO has claimed to have used are from PRIOR years.

So yes, technically ALL the firms have filed taxes BUT not for every year and this is where the fudging happened by terming it "estimates" .

The same thing happened for the unorganized manufacturing sector again from the article.

Because of your "benevolence" in extending me your trust in the case of my use of the term "chief economists" i have also taken the courtesy to extend to you the benefit over the tax returns case, BUT you still need to show me proof of how these irregularities were fixed to the satisfaction of the critics ??



No offence dude, but i might be willing to take an internet-nobody's words over the economists mentioned in the article and the doubts raised by raghuram provided im given some concrete proofs to support YOUR assertion.

So far you have done nothing like that.

Your lay mention of "scaling" and whats been handled or not is not enough to satisfy critics like myself all the way upto the chief economist of RBI.

Bring facts, quote articles - Prove what you just said!

OK so you cant be bothered to read up on the CMOS rebuttal or read up on how standard statistical analysis accounts for data quality by stratification and ingroup sampling. You honestly think CMOS simply aggregated the whole data and applied it verbatim to cover the whole set? Do you even know the method they used in the previous RBI 2500 sample? This was the exact point that CMOS countered both Subbarao and Rangarajan on (and they even provided the % level of capital in question - 15% of total to give an idea of the error bounds), and both have yet to come up with any further counter replies (surprise surprise).

You can latch onto and parrot any article you hear from any random slice in time (with no context for how the sources themselves have since progressed in opinions and statements)....it really doesn't matter....you are not part of anything that will influence the end result....no part of any relevant committee that reviews and approves the data and methodology (multiple IMF teams) for acceptance and publishing in international data sets.

Now why not let this thread return to the original topic? We are going in circles now, you wont budge from your point, I wont budge from mine. Lets accept it, agree to disagree and see who the international community and 3rd parties believe?

 

[Beef Bhaijan]

Dude, you have to keep one thing in mind.

An improvement in the statistical sampling process doesnt necessarily equate to an improvement in measuring the value added to products and services produced in a country.

So in other words you cannot equate improvements in your statistical sampling process to improvements in your economic valuation process. This is the contention.

Now the stratification might have used error bounds of 15 % which may be a statistical improvement, but the value add figure used to quantify economic gain at the company level e.g. "Aggregate Revenue" was replaced by CMO with "Component Revenue".

NOW THAT is using a faulty BALANCE SHEET and thereby FUDGING by every accounting standard!

And the CMOS rebuttal didn't really mention WHY they made the change BUT ONLY how it was different from the 2014 sample .

The problem with this is that if your "Component Revenue" filed doesnt match up to your "aggregate revenue", then your reported data is faulty. This is exactly what CMO did.

Now, one thing to keep in mind is that they used financial data from 520,000 companies with COMPONENT REVENUE never matching it upto to the AGGREGATE REVENUE, not only that BUT also not revenue data from the same company year over year BUT if the company had filed taxes anytime within the 3 year time frame then that was used for "Estimation" towards the private company sector as well....vow ....hahahahah

You tell me how can you use component revenue data for a company from 2012 that hasnt even operated in 2013 or 2014 as an "Estimate" to calculate the VALUE that company added to the country and better yet, THEN use that value to estimate a value for GVA for a private sector company which may not even EXIST ??......lol

And CMO did that for about 480 000 companies to estimate for the private sector ...hahahah

What proof do you or CMO have that :

a. Those companies exist ?

b. They were operating entities ?

c. They added ANY value if not some ??

Show me some proof !

What you want you want to pull out $hit from thin air ?? ...lol

So this proves the method was faulty. So now when you perform stratification on that data it is only stratification done on faulty data and nothing else !

Next the reason that MCA-21 was introduced was to make the whole estimation process better. Earlier they used a high paid up sample of 2500 companies to do the estimation, Now they are using 500 000 companies and using estimates for the private sector companies to make it up to 900 000 companies. based on the faulty "component revenue" as their basis of calculation for value add.

You tell me how is this an improvement when all you have done is increased the sample size yet forgone the very basis of VALUE ADD which is AGGREGATE REVENUE ??

Wouldnt it be better if you do two things according to some of your own critics :

1. Get Aggregate Revenue Data from Publically listed companies

2. Get samples from Private limited companies on a stratification basis

3 Add the above two figures UP !

The way this would help would be :

1. It would greatly reduce the "estimation" of Private sector value add which is currently based in accordance to public sector companies.

2. It would also help in reducing the errors as a basis of yearly tax filings of those companies.

Now, the main reason for prominent economists like raghavan and nagaraj not responding in writing to CMOS rejoined is because the rejoinder had nothing new in it.

Secondly, they have made media presentations and talk about how they still have no trust in the underlying method used to calculate GVA.

What more can they do at an individual level ??

OK so you cant be bothered to read up on the CMOS rebuttal or read up on how standard statistical analysis accounts for data quality by stratification and ingroup sampling. You honestly think CMOS simply aggregated the whole data and applied it verbatim to cover the whole set? Do you even know the method they used in the previous RBI 2500 sample? This was the exact point that CMOS countered both Subbarao and Rangarajan on (and they even provided the % level of capital in question - 15% of total to give an idea of the error bounds), and both have yet to come up with any further counter replies (surprise surprise).

You can latch onto and parrot any article you hear from any random slice in time (with no context for how the sources themselves have since progressed in opinions and statements)....it really doesn't matter....you are not part of anything that will influence the end result....no part of any relevant committee that reviews and approves the data and methodology (multiple IMF teams) for acceptance and publishing in international data sets.

Now why not let this thread return to the original topic? We are going in circles now, you wont budge from your point, I wont budge from mine. Lets accept it, agree to disagree and see who the international community and 3rd parties believe?

 

[Nilgiri]

Dude, you have to keep one thing in mind.

An improvement in the statistical sampling process doesnt necessarily equate to an improvement in measuring the value added to products and services produced in a country.

So in other words you cannot equate improvements in your statistical sampling process to improvements in your economic valuation process. This is the contention.

Now the stratification might have used error bounds of 15 % which may be a statistical improvement, but the value add figure used to quantify economic gain at the company level e.g. "Aggregate Revenue" was replaced by CMO with "Component Revenue".

NOW THAT is using a faulty BALANCE SHEET and thereby FUDGING by every accounting standard!

And the CMOS rebuttal didn't really mention WHY they made the change BUT ONLY how it was different from the 2014 sample .

The problem with this is that if your "Component Revenue" filed doesnt match up to your "aggregate revenue", then your reported data is faulty. This is exactly what CMO did.

Now, one thing to keep in mind is that they used financial data from 520,000 companies with COMPONENT REVENUE never matching it upto to the AGGREGATE REVENUE, not only that BUT also not revenue data from the same company year over year BUT if the company had filed taxes anytime within the 3 year time frame then that was used for "Estimation" towards the private company sector as well....vow ....hahahahah

You tell me how can you use component revenue data for a company from 2012 that hasnt even operated in 2013 or 2014 as an "Estimate" to calculate the VALUE that company added to the country and better yet, THEN use that value to estimate a value for GVA for a private sector company which may not even EXIST ??......lol

And CMO did that for about 480 000 companies to estimate for the private sector ...hahahah

What proof do you or CMO have that :

a. Those companies exist ?

b. They were operating entities ?

c. They added ANY value if not some ??

Show me some proof !

What you want you want to pull out $hit from thin air ?? ...lol

So this proves the method was faulty. So now when you perform stratification on that data it is only stratification done on faulty data and nothing else !

Next the reason that MCA-21 was introduced was to make the whole estimation process better. Earlier they used a high paid up sample of 2500 companies to do the estimation, Now they are using 500 000 companies and using estimates for the private sector companies to make it up to 900 000 companies. based on the faulty "component revenue" as their basis of calculation for value add.

You tell me how is this an improvement when all you have done is increased the sample size yet forgone the very basis of VALUE ADD which is AGGREGATE REVENUE ??

Wouldnt it be better if you do two things according to some of your own critics :

1. Get Aggregate Revenue Data from Publically listed companies

2. Get samples from Private limited companies on a stratification basis

3 Add the above two figures UP !

The way this would help would be :

1. It would greatly reduce the "estimation" of Private sector value add which is currently based in accordance to public sector companies.

2. It would also help in reducing the errors as a basis of yearly tax filings of those companies.

Now, the main reason for prominent economists like raghavan and nagaraj not responding in writing to CMOS rejoined is because the rejoinder had nothing new in it.

Secondly, they have made media presentations and talk about how they still have no trust in the underlying method used to calculate GVA.

What more can they do at an individual level ??

So did you even check how much of the total capital is represented by the so called poor quality data?

 

[Beef Bhaijan]

Dude, you have to keep one thing in mind.

An improvement in the statistical sampling process doesnt necessarily equate to an improvement in measuring the value added to products and services produced in a country.

So in other words you cannot equate improvements in your statistical sampling process to improvements in your economic valuation process. This is the contention.

Now the stratification might have used error bounds of 15 % which may be a statistical improvement, but the value add figure used to quantify economic gain at the company level e.g. "Aggregate Revenue" was replaced by CMO with "Component Revenue".

NOW THAT is using a faulty BALANCE SHEET and thereby FUDGING by every accounting standard!

And the CMOS rebuttal didn't really mention WHY they made the change BUT ONLY how it was different from the 2014 sample .

The problem with this is that if your "Component Revenue" filed doesnt match up to your "aggregate revenue", then your reported data is faulty. This is exactly what CMO did.

Now, one thing to keep in mind is that they used financial data from 520,000 companies with COMPONENT REVENUE never matching it upto to the AGGREGATE REVENUE, not only that BUT also not revenue data from the same company year over year BUT if the company had filed taxes anytime within the 3 year time frame then that was used for "Estimation".

You tell me how can you use component revenue data for a company from 2012 that hasnt even operated in 2013 or 2014 as an "Estimate" to calculate the VALUE that company added to the country ??

What you want you want to pull out $hit from thin air ?? ...lol

So this proves the method was faulty. So now when you perform stratification on that data it is only stratification done on faulty data and nothing else !

Next the reason that MCA-21 was introduced was to make the whole estimation process better. Earlier they used a high paid up sample of 2500 companies to do the estimation, Now they are using 500 000 companies and using estimates for the private sector companies to make it up to 900 000 companies. based on the faulty "component revenue" as their basis of calculation for value add.

You tell me how is this an improvement when all you have done is increased the sample size yet forgone the very basis of VALUE ADD which is AGGREGATE REVENUE ??

Wouldnt it be better if you do two things according to some of your own critics :

1. Get Aggregate Revenue Data from Publically listed companies

2. Get samples from Private limited companies on a stratification basis

3 Add the above two figures UP !

The way this would help would be :

1. It would greatly reduce the "estimation" of Private sector value add which is currently based in accordance to public sector companies.

2. It would also help in reducing the errors as a basis of yearly tax filings of those companies.

Now, the main reason for prominent economists like raghavan and nagaraj not responding in writing to CMOS rejoined is because the rejoinder had nothing new in it.

Secondly, they have made media presentations and talk about how they still have no trust in the underlying method used to calculate GVA.

What more can they do at an individual level ??

OK so you cant be bothered to read up on the CMOS rebuttal or read up on how standard statistical analysis accounts for data quality by stratification and ingroup sampling. You honestly think CMOS simply aggregated the whole data and applied it verbatim to cover the whole set? Do you even know the method they used in the previous RBI 2500 sample? This was the exact point that CMOS countered both Subbarao and Rangarajan on (and they even provided the % level of capital in question - 15% of total to give an idea of the error bounds), and both have yet to come up with any further counter replies (surprise surprise).

You can latch onto and parrot any article you hear from any random slice in time (with no context for how the sources themselves have since progressed in opinions and statements)....it really doesn't matter....you are not part of anything that will influence the end result....no part of any relevant committee that reviews and approves the data and methodology (multiple IMF teams) for acceptance and publishing in international data sets.

Now why not let this thread return to the original topic? We are going in circles now, you wont budge from your point, I wont budge from mine. Lets accept it, agree to disagree and see who the international community and 3rd parties believe?

So did you even check how much of the total capital is represented by the so called poor quality data?

So did you even check how much of the total capital is represented by the so called poor quality data?

How is that question relevant when CMO has already made up its mind on using it.

 

[Nilgiri]

How is that question relevant when CMO has already made up its mind on using it.

So you are saying if the capital represented by the "bad data" represents say a miniscule 1%, its equally as bad to extrapolate if it represented 99% of the total capital?

The IMF team already looked at the process and associated error margins and suggested improvements while accepting what had been established. Should I believe them or someone like you who just joined a forum, with an inherent bias and obvious axe to grind?

 

[Beef Bhaijan]

what are you trying to say, that the estimation of the private sector in India which includes upwards of 480 000 companies a miniscule of 1 % ?? ...and so its negligable ??...lol...really ??...Then why would nagaraj and raghuram cause so much fuss over it ??

why did the IMF seem "puzzled" over the resulting calculation ?? ..obviously it has significance which is why it has caused so much alarm.

The IMF never looked at anything for GOD sake READ you own media articles, for your OWN betterment. They clearly stated they are not "auditing the process of data collection" but rather only SHARING best practices from OECD or developed countries . THATS ALL THEY DId !

It is a habit attributed to a certain CASTE of indians who take everything said and mentioned by a western country of organization as gospel and Blessing for "whats right" without using their OWN Brains into doing some introspection into whats right .

So did you even check how much of the total capital is represented by the so called poor quality data?

So did you even check how much of the total capital is represented by the so called poor quality data?

some com

So you are saying if the capital represented by the "bad data" represents say a miniscule 1%, its equally as bad to extrapolate if it represented 99% of the total capital?

The IMF team already looked at the process and associated error margins and suggested improvements while accepting what had been established. Should I believe them or someone like you who just joined a forum, with an inherent bias and obvious axe to grind?

 

[Nilgiri]

what are you trying to say, that the estimation of the private sector in India which includes upwards of 480 000 companies a miniscule of 1 % ?? ...and so its negligable ??...lol...really ??...Then why would nagaraj and raghuram cause so much fuss over it ??

I'm asking if you came across the number yourself? CMOS provided it in their rebuttal and both have been silent since. They haven't even made a little squeak, just like after CMOS shut up Rangarajan and his attack on IIP in the late 90s. You really think these characters and questioning of macroeconomic data acquisition and processing within India are something new...or something specific to only India?

why did the IMF seem "puzzled" over the resulting calculation ??

Was this before or after they sent their teams to review the methodology?

The IMF never looked at anything for GOD sake READ you own media articles, for your OWN betterment. They clearly stated they are not "auditing the process of data collection" but rather only SHARING best practices from OECD or developed countries . THATS ALL THEY DId !

India gets IMF help on 'back-casting' of new GDP data - timesofindia-economictimes

The team reviewed the methodology of the new GDP estimates

IMF had said at the time that it would "continue to examine the improved GDP methodology and its implications for its growth forecasts, and further details on the compilation methodology will enable a deeper understanding of India's near-term and medium-term growth".

It is a habit attributed to a certain CASTE of indians who take everything said and mentioned by a western country of organization as gospel and Blessing for "whats right" without using their OWN Brains into doing some introspection into whats right .

Heh, now you bring up caste as well? Anyways if you really want it, you can have the last word on this thread. You don't want to believe it and question the numbers, thats fine. Let others decide for themselves, its really that simple.

I will let mods @waz, @Icarus, @WAJsal review your posts if you keep bringing foul language, and things like caste that have nothing to do with the discussion in anything further that you post here to talk with yourself about. Adios.

 

[Beef Bhaijan]

even if i had the 15 % figure how does that justify using the revenue components from mca-21 for only 300 000 companies in 2013 ??

Dude no matter which way you look at it, the whole purpose of the MCA-21 has been compromised. Their was no need to scale as was recommended by the committee.

They didnt squeak then how did raghuram rajan recently say that the numbers are problematic ?


mere mention of the word "caste" is not akin to badmouthing anyone. If your so sensitive then maybe you shouldn't start a conversation.

I have no issues with you calling me a noob or anything else

I'm asking if you came across the number yourself? CMOS provided it in their rebuttal and both have been silent since. They haven't even made a little squeak, just like after CMOS shut up Rangarajan and his attack on IIP in the late 90s. You really think these characters and questioning of macroeconomic data acquisition and processing within India are something new...or something specific to only India?



Was this before or after they sent their teams to review the methodology?



India gets IMF help on 'back-casting' of new GDP data - timesofindia-economictimes







Heh, now you bring up caste as well? Anyways if you really want it, you can have the last word on this thread. You don't want to believe it and question the numbers, thats fine. Let others decide for themselves, its really that simple.

I will let mods @waz, @Icarus, @WAJsal review your posts if you keep bringing foul language, and things like caste that have nothing to do with the discussion in anything further that you post here to talk with yourself about. Adios.

 

[Sam.]

I'm asking if you came across the number yourself? CMOS provided it in their rebuttal and both have been silent since. They haven't even made a little squeak, just like after CMOS shut up Rangarajan and his attack on IIP in the late 90s. You really think these characters and questioning of macroeconomic data acquisition and processing within India are something new...or something specific to only India?



Was this before or after they sent their teams to review the methodology?



India gets IMF help on 'back-casting' of new GDP data - timesofindia-economictimes







Heh, now you bring up caste as well? Anyways if you really want it, you can have the last word on this thread. You don't want to believe it and question the numbers, thats fine. Let others decide for themselves, its really that simple.

I will let mods @waz, @Icarus, @WAJsal review your posts if you keep bringing foul language, and things like caste that have nothing to do with the discussion in anything further that you post here to talk with yourself about. Adios.

You are quite a peach brother.Asking mango tree to give you apple.

Just enjoy the comedy and smirk away.

 

[Fracker]

Interesting, IMF is not so optimisitic:

Iraq having Highest GDP? Ohh well what ever is written

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Pakistan economy is boosting up only in papers

But isn't that true of a lot of nations not just Pakistan?

 

[SBD-3]

here is a fact you ma have not known. due to power shortages it costs pakistan 1% of its gdp.
also as a whole it depends if pakistani politicains are wise enough to help their own country other than their own bank ballance.

1% is just an estimate and that too on the lower side, even the official estimate of 2% of GDP underscores the indirect hurt of energy unavailability. Ample energy availability can easily add somewhere 2.5-3% of growth to GDP.
Zero loadshedding for industrial sector till December | Business - Geo.tv

Iraq having Highest GDP? Ohh well what ever is written

Its GDP growth, not GDP. Afghanistan was posting a whooping 45-50% of GDP growth after the end of Taliban rule not because they were growing phenomenally but because the size of their economy was very small. Base effect is negligible at the start.