Why Pakistan is wealthier than India

[Azadkashmir]

first world countries have their third world trust me there is more of it then it looks. people in the third world, see rich cities/states such as London washington dc,paris, berlin, and think everyone is living like this.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nilgiri haha, the same old wealth per capita.

It is even worse garbage than the Credit Suisse one (at least that one attempts to tabulate only liquid, physically owned assets). Hope enough people can smell that its off....especially for developing countries.

I am only concerned with that which can be brought to the surface credibly and projected for argument/discussion. I mean 90% of the internet is the "dark web"....I dont think most people really venture there....and for good reason. Thus quality of "hidden/unextracted" more immutable resources/wealth in such analysis is similarly flawed.

@GeraltofRivia @Joe Shearer @jhungary @Jungibaaz

 

[Cobra Arbok]

We know India is super power and their HDI is better than even European countries India might be fastest growing economy in the world and yet its wealth is hardly redistributed across the population. Countries can only be considered as developed if quality of life and standard of living (of most citizens ) is very high or at least a decent one and on that parameter both are failure nations as are most other countries in this region. The disparity between people living in a metropolitan city like Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi is astonishing. People defecating on the roads, while on the same road, you see affluent businessmen driving their expensive cars.

blah blah blah. I never said india is great, simply that it is better than pakistan. That ia all that is relevant to the thread. The UN and WB data all show that the average indian is wealthier than the average pakistani and has a much higher standard of living.

 

[BringHarmony]

While the concept is rather interesting, it cannot be used for the purpose of this discussion in the current thread. Take a look at appendix B.

Pakistan
Pakistan 22,182 3,029 5,982 10 2 345 1,572 3,759 294 13,587 −416 185,044,286

Population of Pakistan has been under-estimated as shown by 2017 census.

The issue in comparing Pakistan with any other nation based on these reports is the fact data coming into these reports is of much poor quality, especially population data. Most of these reports have yet to catch up to the speed with latest findings from Pakistan's 2017 census.

Credit Suisse acknowledges this in its report by pointing out that Pakistan's data is not of good enough quality.

It is even worse garbage than the Credit Suisse one (at least that one attempts to tabulate only liquid, physically owned assets). Hope enough people can smell that its off....especially for developing countries.

I am only concerned with that which can be brought to the surface credibly and projected for argument/discussion. I mean 90% of the internet is the "dark web"....I dont think most people really venture there....and for good reason. Thus quality of "hidden/unextracted" more immutable resources/wealth in such analysis is similarly flawed.

@GeraltofRivia @Joe Shearer @jhungary @Jungibaaz

Actually, I will rather look at the relative part of the findings then comparing the absolutes. I am not sure if aggregate 'wealth' can be compared across nations but it is more likely it is comparable across time. India grew more than 100% from 1995 to 2014 according to this world bank report while Pakistan grew by at most 50%.

 

[Nilgiri]

While the concept is rather interesting, it cannot be used for the purpose of this discussion in the current thread. Take a look at appendix B.

Pakistan
Pakistan 22,182 3,029 5,982 10 2 345 1,572 3,759 294 13,587 −416 185,044,286

Population of Pakistan has been under-estimated as shown by 2017 census.

The issue in comparing Pakistan with any other nation based on these reports is the fact data coming into these reports is of much poor quality, especially population data. Most of these reports have yet to catch up to the speed with latest findings from Pakistan's 2017 census.

Credit Suisse acknowledges this in its report by pointing out that Pakistan's data is not of good enough quality.


Actually, I will rather look at the relative part of the findings then comparing the absolutes. I am not sure if aggregate 'wealth' can be compared across nations but it is more likely it is comparable across time. India grew more than 100% from 1995 to 2014 according to this world bank report while Pakistan grew by at most 50%.

Well most members here will only get drawn to absolute figure comparison thinking they are apples and apples.

Just one example, many did this conveniently for Oxford MPI (multi poverty index) when Pakistan scored better than India (even though Oxford explicitly said cross-country comparison is not accurate because of differing source years and quality for the data). When Indian numbers updated from 2005 to something lot more recent (2015) just like Pakistan's and it got better MPI index number as a result...suddenly its no longer a topic of interest.

Here is one example of when I confronted this earlier (pointing out the data lag etc):

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-india-gdp-informal-economy.457537/page-2#post-8843308

Its no longer really brought up anymore when the newer updated report is out:

https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/

 

[BringHarmony]

Well most members here will only get drawn to absolute figure comparison thinking they are apples and apples.

Just one example, many did this conveniently for Oxford MPI (multi poverty index) when Pakistan scored better than India (even though Oxford explicitly said cross-country comparison is not accurate because of differing source years and quality for the data). When Indian numbers updated from 2005 to something lot more recent (2015) just like Pakistan's and it got better MPI index number as a result...suddenly its no longer a topic of interest.

Here is one example of when I confronted this earlier (pointing out the data lag etc):

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-india-gdp-informal-economy.457537/page-2#post-8843308

Its no longer really brought up anymore when the newer updated report is out:

https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/

There is a reason why economics and econometrics is not simply called a "Male Anatomy Measuring Contest".

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Well most members here will only get drawn to absolute figure comparison thinking they are apples and apples.

Just one example, many did this conveniently for Oxford MPI (multi poverty index) when Pakistan scored better than India (even though Oxford explicitly said cross-country comparison is not accurate because of differing source years and quality for the data). When Indian numbers updated from 2005 to something lot more recent (2015) just like Pakistan's and it got better MPI index number as a result...suddenly its no longer a topic of interest.

Here is one example of when I confronted this earlier (pointing out the data lag etc):

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-india-gdp-informal-economy.457537/page-2#post-8843308

Its no longer really brought up anymore when the newer updated report is out:

https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/

Now all of a sudden, MPI is not an accurate measure. And now apparently GDP Per Capita and HDI are not acceptable for measuring economic growth and development, which indicate "wealth." Some people are so desperate that they continuously cherry pick data that only suits their agenda. And both sides are guilty of this.

 

[PakSword]

In my Native state Gujarat where i lived my 90% of life had GDP of 150(270 for whole pak) billion dollars, 3200$(1600$ for pak) per capita income and 9 to 12%(4% for pak) growth rate, with population of 5 carore in 2015-17.

This is just one state.

This can only mean that Pakistan has more economy undocumented than India. Undocumented economy is creating wealth among people, while making the state poor.

That's why, despite more gdp, there is still more poverty and income inequality in India than in Pakistan.

Both IMF and World Bank have fully rejected Wealth data for measuring a nations development and only use GDP and GNI.
This ia because wealth index takes into account Fixed assets like land amd house owner ship which are not economic activities.
The main reason why Pakistan has more wealth than as per this data is because average per capita land area owner ship is higher in Pakistan than India.

Sorry but fixed asset prices, specially that if land, is ascertained by the demand, and the price other people are ready to pay to purchase that land i.e market value.

You can't expect that where the buyer doesn't have money, the property's market value will remain high.

Property prices in the presence of able buyers is a good indicator that public has money that it wants to spend to buy something.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

This can only mean that Pakistan has more economy undocumented than India. Undocumented economy is creating wealth among people, while making the state poor.

That's why, despite more gdp, there is still more poverty and income inequality in India than in Pakistan.


Sorry but fixed asset prices, specially that if land, is ascertained by the demand, and the price other people are ready to pay to purchase that land i.e market value.

You can't expect that where the buyer doesn't have money, the property's market value will remain high.

Property prices in the presence of able buyers is a good indicator that public has money that it wants to spend to buy something.

Except there is not more poverty in India than Pakistan. If that is true India would not rank 20 points ahead of Pakistan on HDI. As for inequality, even on HDI adjusted for inequality India does better. India also does better on MPI, and of course gdp per capita, which is all that really matters. Honestly the whole "Pakistan's economy is undocumented" is just and excuse for why Pakistan is poorer than India. And India also has a large undocumented economy.

 

[BringHarmony]

Sorry but fixed asset prices, specially that if land, is ascertained by the demand, and the price other people are ready to pay to purchase that land i.e market value.

You can't expect that where the buyer doesn't have money, the property's market value will remain high.

Property prices in the presence of able buyers is a good indicator that public has money that it wants to spend to buy something.

The issue is, fixed assets are highly speculative in nature and are often fueled by debt. And trust me, debt is NOT an economic activity. Some people also suggest that the entire world is going through a period of debt accumulation for quite sometime actually and hence fixed asset inflation.

This is how a number of people are able to afford houses which are 10 or 20 times their earnings. This is how the entire neighbourhood becomes paper millionaires (in dollar terms) even though they just held their houses for 30-40 years and did nothing at all.

 

[PakSword]

Except there is not more poverty in India than Pakistan.

I think you should go through this website. I am going to sleep.
https://worldpoverty.io

And trust me, debt is NOT an economic activity.

You can also trust me, wealth is also not an economic activity.

By the way, you do consider that if banks are giving loans to buy property, it means people have means to return that loan back. Right or wrong?

This is also one proof for what I said earlier, Pakistan's economy is way more undocumented than India's. It is not a matter to be proud of, but Pakistan has much less extreme poverty because very few people in Pakistan pay back the government through taxes. That's why our state is poor, but people are not so much poor...

 

[Cobra Arbok]

I think you should go through this website. I am going to sleep.
https://worldpoverty.io

I looked at it. First of all it is some website, not a direct UN report. And there is no way Pakistan has under three percent in poverty. The website actually shows India is reducing poverty at a fast rate, and is on track to reach global poverty reduction benchmarks. Different organizations have different methodologies, which is fine, but I prefer to use data directly from the UN, which is the most accurate. The latest HDI rankings show India 130, Pakistan 150. The MPI index 2018 shows the exact same numbers, India 130, Pakistan 150. Now granted that is by no means great or ideal, but it still disproves the claim that Pakistan is wealthier than India and that the average Pakistani is wealthier than the average Indian, when it is in fact the opposite, though not by much. Hence, the rationale behind this thread is incorrect.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IND
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PAK

I hope you sleep well.

 

[HalfMoon]

That's why our state is poor, but people are not so much poor...

So you are saying

India - Government is rich but people are poor

Pakistan - Government is poor but people are rich

 

[Cobra Arbok]

So you are saying

India - Government is rich but people are poor

Pakistan - Government is poor but people are rich

The most common bs excuse they try to use.

 

[HalfMoon]

The most common bs excuse they try to use.

I don't know. I am just a simpleton and take things at face value. So I will assume that

Pakistani government is poor but Pakistanis are rich

Indian government is rich but Indians are poor.

My question is assuming if what is being said is true can I infer that

Pakistanis are thieves when compared to Indians as they do not seem to be paying taxes to their government?