debottam
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
dude can u see sk and japan. they neither have coal and any natural resources and they were completely destroyed in 1950 behind both india and pak. what ur saying makes no sence. pakistan should have been developed by now if they invested properly. the cutting of 50% education budget in 2012 is a big example how progressive this country. i mean who the phuck cuts education budget in 21st century? they r simply not progressing and by doing that they have accepted it they cant.
smaller countries always have a chance to develop faster if they use their brains in the beginning. sk copied paks city design loll can u believe that? look where they r now.
If education was the only thing to make a difference then by your logic, India, with its emphasis on education from the begining and abundant mineral resources should also have been a developed country by now. That didn't happen. Did it? Economic policies ar far more important. Only after India took a 180 degree turn in 1991 we started on the path of rapid development which in turn helped even higher investment in education.
It's also not true that it is more difficult for large countries to develop rapidly. We have two glaring examples. China since 1990 and India since 2000.
And as I already mentioned in my previous post, Pakistan is in the middle of a war for God's sake. They will have to put money in education no doubt but they don't have a choice at this moment.