DW44
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Runs
- 7,314
I dont think the deal is as bad you make out, the main problem is that in the main our businessman havent taken advantage of the availing opportunities but i take your point but still you conveniently ignored my question again about whether the deal would have been done under both civilian or millitary rule? Your original point was that only the millitary rule could have led to the FTA.
This is why that economics lecture was important. You don't seem to appreciate the gravity of the damage the FTA can do and has done to this point. It's one of the top three worst economic decisions in Pakistan's history. Signing an FTA at such an early stage in your growth cycle is essentially shutting down the only avenue that has been successfully used to transition from a low income country to a high income one. That FTA essentially lowered the ceiling for how much room their is for the Pakistani economy to develop. I didn't conveniently ignore anything, I specifically answered the question you're referring to in the post following the one you quoted but to reiterate, it's possible but less likely because unlike a dictator, a civilian leader would alienate the entire industrial sector in one fell swoop, losing the support of some of the richest and most influential people in the country. My original point was not that only military rule could have led to the FTA, it was that military rule is just as bad, and on the economic front even worse, as civilian rules and this FTA is proof of that.