Do you want a united Pashtunistan, Pukhtunistan, Loy Afghanistan?

[DSM0305]

Again, your quick in trying to debunk me rather than understand what on earth I wrote. your are trying to hold on to your clueless opinion about this subject.

When did I even go remotely close to saying "one fat American with pocket of $ does more good than hundreds of poor people." I used the fat guy reference cause you have posted it first.

Again population make way to consumerism.

Pakistan could charge Afghanistan whatever they want too cause Afghanistan is completely dependent on their ports. so I don't know where you got this idea from, that Pakistan will start being buddy buddy with Afghanistan when there is a potential to make billions for only opening up their routes.

How funny you say that you don't agree with my example of the ''fat american'' yet you don't debunk it. Which can only mean what I said is right, but you just don't want to admit it.

Population have zero significance for the economy, if the population is poor. It is basic math, you can't buy something if you don't have money. Lets assume there is 100 people with 2 $ and 1 person with 1000 $. Now tell me who have the most money to spend on the goods, the 1 person with 1000 $ or 100 persons with 2 $.

The point I am trying to make is the fact that population doesn't matter if they don't have the money. A few people with tons of money benefits the economy far more than many people with no money. As long there is money to be circled around, the population will be no factor in the economy.

Pakistan cant charge us for a lot, because then Afghanistan will see no benefit in taking that route, which will mean Pakistan will lose money and a trading partner. I highly doubt Pakistan will sacrifice billions $ trade with Afghanistan, just for a few pennies.

[DSM0305]

This is Afghan speak for saying you went to DeVry lol

nurgh you're so sweet. Your brotherly love is so big that you debunk my opponent. I didn't know we had that kind of relationship

[کیش]

How funny you say that you don't agree with my example of the ''fat american'' yet you don't debunk it. Which can only mean what I said is right, but you just don't want to admit it.

Population have zero significance for the economy, if the population is poor. It is basic math, you can't buy something if you don't have money. Lets assume there is 100 people with 2 $ and 1 person with 1000 $. Now tell me who have the most money to spend on the goods, the 1 person with 1000 $ or 100 persons with 2 $.

The point I am trying to make is the fact that population doesn't matter if they don't have the money. A few people with tons of money benefits the economy far more than many people with no money. As long there is money to be circled around, the population will be no factor in the economy.

Pakistan cant charge us for a lot, because then Afghanistan will see no benefit in taking that route, which will mean Pakistan will lose money and a trading partner. I highly doubt Pakistan will sacrifice billions $ trade with Afghanistan, just for a few pennies.

oh man, im quite done trying to help you by educating you.

You clearly still don't read what I wrote. when have I said that I "don't agree with your fat American reference" I said I used the fat American reference cause you brought it up. if you look at your original post, It seems you tried to bring that up to showcase that fat Americans don't help the economy. which I proceeded to show how they actually do.

Before you reply with more false-accusations and made up statements by me, reread every post I made in this thread.

[کیش]

its funny, you called me your "opponent". it's actually a pedagogy by me to you. so thanks

[DSM0305]

oh man, im quite done trying to help you by educating you.

You clearly still don't read what I wrote. when have I said that I "don't agree with your fat American reference" I said I used the fat American reference cause you brought it up. if you look at your original post, It seems you tried to bring that up to showcase that fat Americans don't help the economy. which I proceeded to show how they actually do.

Before you reply with more false-accusations and made up statements by me, reread every post I made in this thread.

I already have, and you clearly said that population have direct effect on the economy, which was your original post. Anyone who knows remotely about economics knows, that economy isn't even remotely effected by population, actually it is a burden on the economy if the population is poor. Which clarifies my original statement that population have no effect on the economic growth.

[DSM0305]

its funny, you called me your "opponent". it's actually a pedagogy by me to you. so thanks

It is rather me teaching you something that you clearly didn't learn in your ''university''. I hope you didn't pay for it, that be a huge waste of money

[کیش]

Sure, if it makes you sleep better at night. somebody who has never read an economics book knows better than people who have studied it. since I have read what you said, and you haven't mines heres what happened.

so in conclusion of your excellent thesis about access to the sea:

Landlocked nations don't need access to seas because they can just fork money over to those just to use there's. In business, expenses are king.

my horrible thesis:

Landlocked nations with natural resources have the potential to become a global powerhouse. the access to the seas cuts the middle-men and they get to keep the profit, minimizing expenses.

Your scholarly opinion on population:

having a large population is inefficient in improving a third world countries economy. having a large population somehow corralates with having a copious amount of stupid people.

My uneducated opinion:

a large population has the potential to help boost an economy. More people =increase of demand, which increases supply, which brings in revenue, which opens up jobs, which pays the population who purchase other goods, which increases the nations GDP.

[کیش]

before you won't understand what I meant with large population, let me clarify.

large population with respect of a nations square miles. so Afghanistan has 35 million people, that is a large amount of population considering its size,

[کیش]

MIT can of course be compared to a country, especially since it does not depend on the sea and since its throughput is exactly that of a tax-paying company, which in effect contributes to nation building. I mean, look at the people it has employed, money it generates, growth that it motivates. Put all the companies in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined, and MIT still is much more powerful; where powerful is defined as the companies founded by its alums, research that is actually ported to industry, and tax-paying dollars contributed to a nations revenue as a direct consequence of the firms created by the university. On the contrary, Afghanistan, nor Pakistan, can never be a "international player" or "player in the world", even Russia is struggling at that role. So that was never my premise.

TL;DR:
At this point, all Afghanistan needs is peace.

Best,

yea, presently Afg needs peace and a consistent central government. So they can properly regulate, support and tax domestic businesses.

They also need to study business, finance, accounting and economics thoroughly. they haven't been able to even accomplish this not so complex task of installing these at their schools with NATO there.

This current government has been stagnant for a decade.

the next president and his government will also go no where.

[DSM0305]

A person who uses his time on explaining how ''educated'' he is, instead of giving factual arguments, really isn't educated at all. Unless of course one considers ego to be education instead of IQ.

A persons demand depends on how much money the person have. 35 million Afghans have far less demands than 5 million Europeans. Which verifies my statement that population have no significance in economic growth.

No one says that it is bad to have a sea port, I said that it have no significance importance for economic growth. Neighbor countries don't charge much for using their sea port, which means it doesn't effect landlocked countries economic growth.

For somebody who claims to have studied the subject in university, you're quite clueless. You don't even know about the basics.

[کیش]

cool story bro,

may I ask about your economic credentials, which institute, was your professors a P.h.D's?

or is everything your plain baseless opinions. your the one with the ego, by calling me an "opponent" and the audacity to lay false claims I have never mentioned. I already gave my opinion with the knowledge of international business background. any smart person who read both papers can easily see who knows what theyre talking about.

I could also academically disaproof your last statements, but itll be a waste of time; emotional biases never learn anything, since they cant ever be wrong.
[MENTION=1058]Bengal_Tiger[/MENTION]

no one invited your Bengali roaches species here. the question was if you wanted a loy Afghanistan. that is the issue between Afg/Pak affairs.

[Bost Bastan News]

I think most of you guys know that forum Pakdefense. Let´s be realistic and accept reality how Pashtuns there think about us

http://defence.pk/threads/revenge-by-pakistani-pashtuns-private-war-breaks-out-on-pak-afghan-border.226785/

If you read just the first 3 pages your blood get boiled.

[mazdaarya]

Say no to Pashtunistan/Loy Afghanistan! Yes for Aryana (Afghanistan+Tajikistan+Khyber Pakhtunkhwa+Balochistan+Gilgit Baltistan+Samarkand+Bukhara)

[hamid954]

Don't call it Loy Afghanistan call it Greater Afghanistan since it is for ALL Afghans pashtun tajik uzbek hazara baloch aimak nuristan ect...

[Kushan Prince]

Say no to Pashtunistan/Loy Afghanistan! Yes for Aryana (Afghanistan+Tajikistan+Khyber Pakhtunkhwa+Balochistan+Gilgit Baltistan+Samarkand+Bukhara)

No thanks.