Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
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?