Second Quarter Report Fy 2008 Period Ending November 30: Fill & Download for Free

1991- Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh scamCrash of 1992On 28 April 1992, the BSE experienced a fall of 12.77% - its largest fall in history (in terms of percentage) due to the Harshad Mehta scam.Crash of 2006On 18 May 2006, the BSE Sensex fell by 826 points to 11,391Reasons -Bad US CPI index numbersDuring the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the stock markets in India fell on several occasions in 2007 as well as 2008. In 2007, there were five sharp falls in the stock markets.2 April 2007: The sensex fell by 617 points to 12,455 though during the course of the day, it fell further. As per the analysts at rediff, "The Sensex opened with a huge negative gap of 260 points at 12,812 following the Reserve Bank of India [Get Quote] decision to hike the cash reserve ratio and repo rate. Unabated selling, mainly in auto and banking stocks, saw the index drift to lower levels as the day progressed. The index tumbled to a low of 12,426 before finally settling with a hefty loss of 617 points (4.7%) at 12,455".1 August 2007: The sensex continued to fall and finally settled at 14,936 while the nifty fell by 183 points to 4,346. As per Rediff, "The Sensex opened with a negative gap of 207 points at 15,344 amid weak trends in the global market and slipped deeper into the red. Unabated selling across-the-board saw the index tumble to a low of 14,911. The Sensex finally ended with a hefty loss of 615 points at 14,936. The NSE Nifty ended at 4,346, down 183 points. This was the third biggest loss in absolute terms for the index (thus far)".Crashes of 2008on 21 Jan 2008, the BSE fell by 1408 points to 17,605 leading to one of the largest erosions in investor wealth.[14] The BSE stopped trading for a while at 2:30 pm due to a technical snag although its circuit filter allows swings of up to 15% before stopping trading for an hour.[15][16] Referred to in the media as "Black Monday", the fall was blamed by analysts at HSBC mutual fund and JP Morgan on a large variety of reasons including change in the global investment climate, fears of United States' economy going into a recession, FIIs and foreign hedge funds selling in order to reallocate their funds from risky emerging markets to stable developed markets, a cut in US interest rates, global bourses (often referred to as event related volatility), volatility in commodities markets, a combination of global and local factors ("...other emerging markets were down nearly 20% so India is playing catch-up..."), huge build-ups in derivatives positions leading to margin calls and that many IPOs had sucked out liquidity from the primary market into the secondary market.[17] HSBC mutual funds analysts predicted further falls in the stock market, and the analysts at JP Morgan were of the opinion that market would fall a further 10-15%On the next day on 22 January 2008, the Sensex again fell by 875 points to 16,729.Jan 22, 2008: The Sensex saw its biggest intra-day fall on Tuesday when it hit a low of 15,332, down 2,273 points. However, it recovered losses and closed at a loss of 875 points at 16,730. The Nifty closed at 4,899 at a loss of 310 points. Trading was suspended for one hour at the Bombay Stock Exchange after the benchmark Sensex crashed to a low of 15,576.30 within minutes of opening, crossing the circuit limit of 10 per cent.On 11 Feb 2008, the Sensex fell by a further 834 points to 16,630.On 3 March 2008, the Sensex fell by 900 points to settle at 16,677.On 17 March 2008, the BSE Sensex fell further to 14,809 - a fall of 951 points.On 24 October 2008, the BSE Sensex fell to 8701, a fall of 1070 points in a single day.On 26 November 2008, the Sensex continue to fall, in the bargain (as per the financial newspaper Livemint) "...dashing middle class dreams". Analysts at Livemint and Ajmera associates, Anagram capital and Ace financial services ascribed a number of reasons for this, ranging from large sales by foreign institutional investors (FII), withdrawal of money by the insurance sector. They all felt that the Sensex could rise by at the most 20-30% in 2009, from its them level of 9000 points.Crash of 2009On 6 July 2009, the Sensex fell by 869 points to 14,043.Crashes of year 2015On 6 Jan 2015, the Sensex fell by 854 points to 26,987.On 24 August 2015, the BSE Sensex crashed by 1,624 points and the NSE fell by 490 points. Finally the indices closed at 25,741 points and the Nifty to 7,809 points. The reason given for this crash was given as a ripple effect due to fears over a slowdown in China, as the Yuan had been devalued two weeks ago leading to a fall in the currency rates of other currencies and the rapid selling of stocks in China and India. The Shanghai stock exchange too fell by 8.5%. A variety of other reasons too were given for this fall by analysts including disappointing earnings in the first quarter for many Indian companies, somber commentaries by their management leading to doubts regarding their recovery and a below average monsoon for that year.Crashes of 2016The stock markets in India continued to fall in 2016. By 16 February 2016, the BSE had seen a fall of 26% over the past eleven months, losing 1607 points in four consecutive days of February. The reasons given for this included NPAs of Indian banks, "global weaknesses" and "global factors". In the four months from November 2015 to February 2016, FIIs were reported to have sold equities worth Rs 17,318 crore as, in the opinion of analysts, concerns grew over growth in China and as crude oil prices tumbled below $30 per barrelOn 9 November 2016, crashed by 1689 points, believed by analysts to be due to the crack down on black money by the Indian government, resulting in franctic selling. The sensex nosedived by 6% to 26,902 and the Nifty dropped by 541 points to 8002. These were said to be due to the demonetization drive by the Modi government. The Hindu was of the opinion that the weakening rupee and the US presidential election too had some bearing on the behavior of investors. The fall was concurrent with falls in other Asian stock markets including the Hang Seng, Nikkei and the Shanghai Composite. The S&P had also fallen by 4.45%.Crashes of 2018Although not classified as a crash, the BSE and NSE fell sharply on 2 and 5 February 2018, sparked by the comments of the Finance minister's proposal in the budget speech to introduce a 10% long term capital gains tax (LTCG) on equity shares sold after 12 months.[26][27][28] The BSE Sensex fell by 600 points in two days, and the Nifty 50 fell by about 400 points to 10,676 on 5th.[29] Earlier, the BSE Sensex had fallen by 570 points to 35,328 on 2 February and the NSE Nifty by 190 points to a low of 10,826.Crashes of 2020On 1 February 2020, as the FY 2020-21 Union budget was presented in the lower house of the Indian parliament, Nifty fell by over 3% (373.95 points) while Sensex fell by more than 2% (987.96 points). The fall was also weighed by the global breakdown amid coronavirus pandemic centered in China.On 28 February 2020, Sensex lost 1448 points and Nifty fell by 432 points due to growing global tension caused by coronavirus, [32] which W.H.O said has a pandemic potential. [33] Both BSE and NSE fell for the entire five days of the week ending with the worst weekly fall since 2009On March 4 and 6, markets fell by around 1000 points and several crores of wealth was wiped out. On 6 March 2020, Yes Bank was taken over by RBI under its management for reconstruction and will be merged with SBI. This was done to ensure smooth functioning of the bank as it was struggling for couple of years to cope up with heavy pressure due to cleaning of bad loans.On 9 March 2020, the Sensex fell by 1,941.67 points, while Nifty-50 broke down by 538 points. The fear of COVID-19 outbreak has created havoc all over the globe and India is no exception. Further, the recent Yes Bank crisis also made the markets fell.[35] The markets ended in red with Sensex closing on 35,634.95 and Nifty-50 on 10,451.45.On 12 March 2020, the Sensex fell by 2919.26 points (-8.18% ), the worst continuation of the week in the history while Nifty-50 broke down by 868.25 points (-8.30% ) amid World Health Organisation (WHO) declaring Coronavirus outbreak as "pandemic".[36] Sensex ended to 33-month low of 32778.14.On 16 March 2020, Sensex plunged by 2,713.41 points (around 8%), the second worst fall in its history. On the other hand, Nifty ended below 9200–mark at 9,197.40 due to global economic recessionHowever, the Sensex continued to fall straight for 4–continuous days till 19 March 2020, losing 5815 points during the period.On 23 March 2020, Sensex lost 3,934.72 points (13.15%) and Nifty plunges 1,135 points (12.98%) at 7610.25[39] as coronavirus-led lockdowns across the world triggered fears of a recession. These are now the lowest levels since 2016. It's witnessing the biggest weekly loss since October 2008, as the increasing number of coronavirus cases in India as well as globally.

Whenever, I think of Joe Biden, I think of the “together” relationship and the “together partnership “ that he formed with Obama to did America out of the worst recession since the great depression. I know that it is not a popular topic of discussion these days, because it is usually drowned out by the Trump economic noise-people conveniently would like to forget that Trump came into office on the strength of a good economy and low unemployment- and that it was the hard work of the Obama/Biden coalition that brought it about. So, let’s take a little stroll down memory lane with the good things that included Joe Biden before we start accusing him of the “petty” accusation” of corporate interest. Because this is what people do when they don’t want to give you credit for good things, they go to the conversation of the lowest common denominator.John CassidyAt the end of Obama’s presidency, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, it had picked up from 4.6 from the previous month, and average hourly wages were almost three percent higher than they had been a year earlier. As the President’s supporters were quick to point out, this was the seventy-fifth consecutive month of job growth, which is a record for the modern era. Since early 2010, 15.8 million jobs have been created.How much credit does Obama deserve for all this? It is a truism among economists that Presidents get too much blame when the economy is doing badly and too much credit when it is doing well. Factors outside the White House’s control, such as global and financial shocks, Federal Reserve policy, and demographic and technological trends, often play a big role in determining things like the level of unemployment and the growth rate of the gross domestic product.But Presidents aren’t mere bystanders. The policies they carry out, in conjunction with Congress, matter a great deal. In times of acute danger, Presidents can give the economy a much-needed boost. Or they can prolong the agony. In the longer term, policies such as new spending programs, changes to the tax laws, and reforms of the regulatory code can have a major effect. Anybody who doubts this needs to read up on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt or of Ronald Reagan.Obama’s policies helped lift the economy out of a frightening slump and set it on a path to steady if unspectacular, growth. In fact, I’d call this his biggest achievement. The scale of the financial panic of 2008 and the extent of the job losses that occurred in the first months of 2009 should never be forgotten. By “a number of macroeconomic measures—including household wealth, employment and trade flows—the first year of the Great Recession in the United States saw declines that were as large or larger than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30,” Jason Furman, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, recounted in an exit memo that he posted online this week.The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Hank Paulson, President Bush’s Treasury Secretary, all played key roles in quelling the panic. But the Obama Administration finished the job, continuing the crisis measures that had been introduced, pushing through the rescue of the auto industry that Paulson had set in motion, and carrying out a set of stress tests that restored confidence in the big banks. The new Administration also boosted the overall level of demand in the economy with an eight-hundred-and-forty-billion-dollar stimulus package, which featured temporary tax cuts and more federal spending. By the second half of 2009, the gross domestic product was growing again. By October 2009, the unemployment rate had peaked, at ten percent. If other policy decisions had been made, things could have been very different, and much worse.At seven and a half years long, the Obama recovery now is one of the longest on record. In terms of annual G.D.P. growth, the rate of expansion has been relatively modest: since 2010, G.D.P. has risen by about 2.1 percent a year. During the Bill Clinton recovery (1992-2000), G.D.P. growth averaged 3.8 percent a year, and during the George W. Bush recovery (2002-2007), it averaged 2.7 percent.Citing figures like these, Obama’s critics claim that this has been the weakest recovery since the Second World War. But that ignores at least a couple of important measures. As the economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have pointed out, “Postwar business cycles are not the right comparator for the severe crises that have swept advanced economies in recent years.” The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 wasn’t a normal recession. It was an old-fashioned financial bust, and it always takes economies a long time to recover fully from those—if they ever do. Japan took two decades to rebound from a financial bust in the early nineteen-nineties. Much of Europe still hasn’t recovered from the Great RecessionIn addition, if you look at employment rather than at G.D.P., the Obama recovery looks much stronger. Since the start of 2010, the U.S. economy has created about 2.4 million jobs per year. During the Bush recovery of 2002-2007, annual job growth was just 1.2 million. In terms of jobs, the Obama recovery compares with the Clinton recovery, of the nineteen-nineties, when approximately 2.8 million jobs were created each year.The difference between Obama’s record and Bush’s is even starker if you focus on entire Presidential terms, including periods of recession as well as periods of recovery. Between January 2001 and December 2008, 2.1 million jobs were created. Between January 2009, and December 2016, 11.3 million jobs were created. The economy created nearly five and a half times more jobs under Obama than it did under Bush.To be sure, there are legitimate questions to be raised about the quality of these new jobs. Many are either in service industries that pay low wages, such as personal care and hospitality, or they are temporary positions. But that’s not the full story, either. Some parts of the service sector that pay higher wages, such as computer-systems support and management consulting, have also expanded significantly during the Obama years. The manufacturing sector, after shedding 2.2 million jobs between December 2007, and January 2010, has since added close to eight hundred thousand positions.So, you see, great things happen, with a great partnership in place, and sometimes it’s necessary to remind people of this. Now, we can also look at a compare and contrast of the Obama/Biden vs Trump/Pence partnership. and I’ll quote•••BY KIMBERLY AMADEOUpdated March 14, 2019Donald J. Trump, a Republican, is the 45th U.S. president. His term is from 2017 to 2021. Like most Republican presidents, he promised to cut taxes, reduce the budget and trade deficits, lower the national debt, and boost defense spending.Barack H. Obama, a Democrat, was the 44th president. His two terms were from 2009 to 2017. Like most Democratic presidents, he promised to increase taxes on high-income families, improve healthcare coverage, and strengthen regulations.Here's a comparison of their policies in seven critical economic areas: defense, recession recovery, health care, trade, regulations, the national debt, and climate change.DefenseBoth presidents budgeted more for defense than any administration since WWII. Trump budgeted $576 billion for the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2020. But the DoD budget is just one component of military spending. There is also emergency funding that's not subject to sequestration. Congress allocates that for overseas wars. Trump budgeted $174 billion, for a total of $750 billion for defense.Military spending is also hidden in the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration. The Justice Department pays for the FBI. In addition, Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Veterans Administration also support the defense. When these are combined, FY 2020 military spending is $989 billion.Obama eliminated Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On May 1, 2011, Navy SEALs attacked the al-Qaida leader's compound in Pakistan. Later that year, Obama withdrew troops from the Iraq War. Three years later, renewed threats from the Islamic State group meant troops had to return.The Sunni-Shiite split affects the U.S. economy with its ongoing contest over the Strait of Hormuz. Although a religious war, this Middle Eastern battle between Saudi Arabia and Iran is of global economic concern. It revolves around who gets control of the waterway through which 20 percent of the world’s supply of crude oil passes.In 2014, Obama wound down the war in Afghanistan. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should have reduced annual military spending. But it did not reduce it very much. At almost $800 billion, military spending was the largest FY 2014 discretionary budget item. It was one of the leading causes of the budget deficit and national debt. The War on Terror costs has added $2.4 trillion to the U.S. debt as of the FY 2020 budget.Obama used a non-military tactic to reduce the threat of nuclear war with Iran. On July 14, 2015, Obama brokered a nuclear peace agreement with Iran. In return, the United Nations lifted the economic sanctions it imposed in 2010. Iran's economyimproved greatly from the lifting of sanctions, an effect from signing the nuclear deal. But Trump pulled the United States out of that deal.Obama also reduced the U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile by 10 percent.Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for reducing the war in Iraq. Despite this peaceful reputation and actions, Obama spent more on defense than any other president preceding him. In FY 2010, his first budget, he spent $527.2 billion on the DoD and $851.6 billion on total military spending. In FY 2011, he reached a peak of $855.1 billion in total military spendings. Both presidents are spending much more on defense than any previous president.Recession RecoveryTrump entered the office without a recession to fight. But he won the election on the impression by voters that the economic growth should be better. He promised growth of more than 4 percent. His voters didn't realize that such fast growth is unsustainable and dangerous. It becomes a bubble that creates a recession. Here are examples of that boom and bust cycle.Obama faced the worst recession since the Great Depression. He used expansionary fiscal policy to combat it. He signed the Economic Stimulus Act. This act created jobs in education and infrastructure, ending the recession in the third quarter of 2009.Obama bailed out the U.S. auto industry on March 30, 2009. The federal government took over General Motors and Chrysler, saving 3 million jobs.Obama used the Troubled Asset Relief Program to create the Home Affordable Refinance Program. It rescued homeowners who were upside-down in their mortgages.Health CareTrump's approach to health care focused on weakening the Affordable Care Act. He stopped reimbursing insurers for their low-income customers. They raised premiums 20 percent. He made short-term insurance more available. It's cheaper than Obamacare but doesn't have the same benefits. He also allowed states to enforce work requirements on Medicaid recipients.Trump also signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It repealed the ACA mandate that everyone must have health insurance or pay a tax. That allows healthy people to cancel their plans, leaving insurance companies with costly sick people. As a result, premiums are bound to rise.Trump's supporters were frustrated with rising health care costs. They blamed Obamacare. Many of them had lost their employer-based insurance. Then they found that individual policies on the health care exchanges were more expensive.Others thought it was unfair that they had to accept policies that covered maternity care as part of the 10 essential benefits. Policies were also more expensive because the ACA prohibited annual and lifetime limits. It mandated that insurers cover everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions.The ACA legislation made changes to Medicare. One change was more coverage of prescription drug costs. It also began paying hospitals for quality of care, not for each test or procedure. Trump's health care plans did not try to reform these specific aspects of the ACA.Congress wanted to repeal the ACA taxes. In 2013, the ACA levied taxes on those earning $200,000 or more. In 2014, anyone who didn't obtain health insurance also paid a tax.The reason Obama pushed through the ACA in 2010 was to reduce health care costs. The cost of Medicare and Medicaid threatened to eat the budget alive. The No. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy is health care costs, even for those with insurance. Many policies at the time had annual and lifetime limits that were easily exceeded by chronic illness.Most of the Act's benefits didn't go into effect until after 2014. Obamacare closed the Medicare “doughnut hole.” More importantly, the ACA provides health insurance for everyone. It slows the rise of national health care costs. It allows more people to afford preventive health care. They can treat their illnesses before they require expensive emergency room care.In 2012, The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of Obamacare to be $1.76 trillion. Much of these costs went to expanding Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to reach more low-income bracket earners.TradeTrump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It would have been the world's largest free trade agreements. He threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, the world's largest existing agreement. He said he would negotiate better bilateral agreements.The Obama administration negotiated the TPP. It also successfully concluded bilateral agreements in South Korea in 2012, Colombia in 2011, Panama in 2011, and Peru in 2009. The administration negotiated but didn't finish, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Trump has not said whether he would continue negotiations on the TTIP.Trump advocates trade protectionism. In 2018, he launched a global trade war. In January 2018, he imposed tariffs and quotas on imported Chinese solar panels and washing machines. In March 2018, he announced a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. On July 6, Trump's tariffs went into effect for $34 billion of Chinese imports. On August 2, 2018, the administration announced a 25 percent tariff on $16 billion worth of Chinese goods. The end result of the trade war is still unclear, however, many economists predict that a prolonged trade dispute will end up hurting American businesses and consumers, and could even lead to an economic recession.Trump also promised to label China as a currency manipulator. Trump claims that China artificially undervalues its currency, the yuan, by 15-40 percent. If it didn't reduce its trade surplus with the United States, he would impose duties on its exports. As president, he imposed tariffs without officially naming China a manipulator. The dollar to yuan conversion and history revealed that, if anything, China's currency is overvalued.RegulationsObama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act in 2010. It regulated non-bank financial companies, like hedge funds, and complicated derivatives, like credit default swaps. It made another financial crisis less likely. Dodd-Frank also regulated credit, debit, and prepaid cards. It ended payday loans with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Trump would like to repeal Dodd-Frank completely. He claims it keeps banks from lending more to small businesses. On May 22, 2018, Congress passed a rollback of Dodd-Frank rules for these banks. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act eased regulations on "small banks." These are banks with assets from $100 billion to $250 billion. They include American Express, Ally Financial, and Barclays.The rollback means the Fed can't designate these banks as too big to fail. They no longer have to hold as much in assets to protect against a cash crunch. They also may not be subject to the Fed's "stress tests." As a result, only the 12 biggest U.S. banks have to comply with this portion of Dodd-Frank. In addition, these smaller banks no longer have to comply with the Volcker Rule.Deficit and DebtBoth presidents ran up record-setting budget deficits. Obama's stimulus plan added $253 billion to President George W. Bush's last budget to create the largest deficit in U.S. history. The recession reduced revenue by almost $600 billion. As a result, the FY 2009 budget deficit was $1.4 trillion.In FY 2010 and FY 2011, the Obama tax cut extension sent the budget deficit to $1.3 trillion. As the economy improved, each year's deficit became smaller. By FY 2016, it was $585 billion.But the deficit by the president has increased under Trump's budgets, even though there is no recession. Trump's FY 2020 budget creates a $1.1 trillion deficit.Each year's budget deficit adds to the debt. But an economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve found the reported deficit does not include all of the amount owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. That amount is called off-budget. Every president uses this sleight of hand to make deficits look smaller. As a result, looking at debt by president provides a better gauge of government spending.Obama added a total of $8.5 trillion to the debt during his two terms. But if Trump stays in office for two terms, he will add $9 trillion. Trump has betrayed his campaign promise to eliminate the debt. Even in his first four years, he's adding $5 trillion. That's as much as Obama did while he was fighting the worst recession since the Great Depression.Trump's plan to reduce the debt relies on increasing economic growth to 6 percent. Like most Republicans, he used tax cuts to spur that level of growth. In fact, Trump's tax cuts for the rich have not seemed to trickle down to ordinary Americans, and the debt load of the government is projected to balloon under Donald Trump.Trump promised to cut waste. But some of his strategies fall under the five myths on cutting government spending. These include cutting foreign aid, increase defense spending to boost growth and cut entitlement programs. Research shows these aren't the most effective ways to cut spending or boost the economy.Climate ChangeOn December 12, 2015, Obama led global efforts to finalize the Paris Climate Agreement. Countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions and increase carbon trading. Members decided to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Developed countries agreed to contribute $100 billion a year to assist emerging markets. Many developing countries bear the brunt of the damage from climate change, facing typhoons, rising sea levels, and droughts.At least 55 of the 196 participating countries must now ratify the agreement before it can go into effect. At the 2016 G20 meeting, China and the United States agreed to ratify the agreement. These two countries emit the most greenhouse gases.Obama announced carbon reduction regulations in 2014. He enacted the Clean Power Plan in 2015. It's a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent of 2005 levels by 2030. It does this by setting carbon reduction goals for the nation's power plants. To comply, power plants will create 30 percent more renewable energy by 2030. It encourages carbon emissions trading by allowing states that emit less than the caps to trade their surplus to states that emit more than the cap.On June 1, 2017, Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. He promised to eliminate the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule. He signed an order allowing construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. They'd ship high-grade Canadian crude oil to refineries in the Gulf region.Trump pledged to revive the coal industry while remaining committed to clean coal technology. He signed an order that suspended, rescinded, or flagged for review several Obama-era measures that addressed climate change. He rescinded orders to address the link between climate change and defense. He initiated a review of Obama's Clean Power Plan because of its regulations on the coal industry. His administration is expected to allow states to set their own standards on coal emissions.Joe Biden Political positionsJoe has quite a bit of opinion and hold a position on many things, but they too numerous to mention, so I am just going to include a brief precise, and here they are:Joe Biden served as the Vice President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. He served in the Senate from 1973 until 2009 and made his second run for President of the United States in the 2008 presidential election as a Democrat. Biden was announced as Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's running mate on August 23, 2008, and was elected Vice President on November 4, 2008.Biden has been a strong proponent of so-called free trade agreements throughout his career, being one of the few Democrats to vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement. During the Obama administration, Biden was also a staunch advocate for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.The Democratic Party’s Changing FaceBiden’s regular Joe credibility is based entirely on his personal background, as someone who grew up working class and speaks with the rough masculinity that Washington interprets as authenticity. But his politics have always relied on elite assumptions about the economy: Deficits are bad, deregulation is smart and the government is at best a clumsy steward of economic prosperity.Biden struggled to shake off this thinking once it was discredited by the financial crisis, but Democratic Party voters did not. Today, the unapologetic liberalism that Biden began to turn against in the 1970s is so resurgent that its proponents sometimes even call themselves ”democratic socialists.” All of the policy energy in the party has moved past conventional thinking of even the Obama years ― from a Green New Deal that shrugs off questions about deficits, to Medicare for All to various attacks on the political power of the billionaire class. Biden’s record is out of step with the party’s current priorities.Will that matter to Democratic primary voters?“I don’t think the issues mean a great deal in terms of whether you win or lose,” Biden told Washingtonian back in 1974. “I think the issues are merely a vehicle to portray your intellectual capacity to the voters . . . a vehicle by which the voters will determine your honesty and candor.”He’ll have another opportunity to test that theory in 2020.Zach CarterSenior Reporter, HuffPost[There are as of today 21 Democrats running for the presidency of the United States-Michael Bennet has just entered the race. He seems like a shrewd, quiet, quiet, unassuming young man- and who could forget his impressive tirade against Ted Cruise. Yes, I am listening to him right now, and he has my vote along with Mayor Pete as being very smart young men who would be able to hold their own against Trump. I had so much hope for Beto, but then he started sounding crazy like some of the others, so….Now, at first, when I saw the field of Dems expanding, I was upset, because I thought that it was just too many people, and it would be difficult to hear them above the noise. But, now I have to say that I came to the realization that it is a good thing because this would be 21 candidates along with all the representatives spreading the message out into the country. That way, they will be able to touch every little nook and cranny and reach people that they haven’t touch before.Back to the subject of Joe Biden and corporate interest, it is obvious that he has made some not very savory decisions before in his political life, but he has made efforts to atone for it, but then who hasn't?. So has Bernie Sanders, who runs around on every network talking about that. Full disclosure, i am not a Bernie supporter-why? because I have lived in countries where his style of politics, and know that it does not work as he says. But, I am not here to talk about Bernie. I just want to stress the fact that Democrats should realize that the upcoming election is going to be just about the most important election, that they have no choice but to win. Bill Mahr has always said that he does not think that Trump will leave in 2020 if he loses the election. One only has to look at the conduct at William Barr conducted himself yesterday, to realize that there could be a “Dear leader” situation coming if Trump wins reelection. All the guys who hold high office, seem to be in Trump’s pocket. How easy it would be for Trump to do like XI and declare himself “president for life”. So if Democrats want to waste time killing and eating each other before they get to the finish line-go right ahead.I will say what won’t be very popular though: here goes, a woman is not going to win against Trump, -just remember Trump intimidation of Hillary, and of course, he is polishing up his “Pocahontas” for Elizabeth Warren. Bernie is not going to win- he already started his “crazy Bernie wants to give away the country”. and that will stick. He already started “sleepy Joe”, but Biden will take away his supporters, and you can already see his fear. I love Biden, but I wish he had not declared his presidency. I prefer one of the younger guys, but we shall seeBiden embraced segregation in 1975- here he is embracing a guy who would have been a victim of segregation- people can and do change their position as they grow

Since the country's independence in 1947, the economy of Pakistan has emerged as a semi-industrialised one, based heavily on textiles, agriculture and food production, though recent years have seen a surge towards technological diversification. As of 2014, agriculture accounts for more than one-fifth of output and two-fifths of employment. Textiles account for most of Pakistan's export earnings, and inflation has increased rapidly, climbing from 7.7% in 2007 to almost 12% for 2011, before declining to 10% in 2012 and to 2.11 percent in April 2015. Inflation Rate in Pakistan averaged 7.99 percent from 1957 until 2015, reaching an all-time high of 37.81 percent in December 1973 and a record low of -10.32 percent in February 1959. Pakistan suffered its only economic decline in GDP between 1951 and 1952.[1]The land forming modern-day Pakistan was home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation from 2800 BC to 1800 BC; historical evidence suggests that the civilisation relied on and carried trade through the Indus River, and its inhabitants were some of the most resourceful traders. Since independence the economic growth has meant an increase in average income of about 150 percent over 1950–96. But Pakistan, like many other developing countries, has not been able to narrow the gap between itself and rich industrial nations which have grown faster on a per head basis. Per capita GNP growth rate during 1985–95 was only 1.2 percent per annum, substantially lower than India (3.2), Bangladesh (2.1), and Sri Lanka (2.6).[2] Growth was slow during the 1950s averaging 3.1 percent per annum but accelerated to 6.7 percent during the sixties and remained generally close to 6 percent per annum till the early 1990s.Ancient HistoryIndus Valley civilisation, the first known permanent and predominantly urban settlement that flourished between 3500 BC to 1800 BC boasted of an advanced and thriving economic system. Its citizens practised agriculture, domesticated animals, made sharp tools and weapons from copper, bronze and tin and traded with other cities.[3] Evidence of well laid streets, layouts, drainage system and water supply in the valley's major cities, Harappa, Lothal, Mohenjo-daro and Rakhigarhi reveals their knowledge of urban planning.Though ancient India had a significant urban population, much of India's population resided in villages, whose economy was largely isolated and self-sustaining. Agriculture was the predominant occupation of the populace and satisfied a village's food requirements besides providing raw materials for hand based industries like textile, food processing and crafts. Besides farmers, other classes of people were barbers, carpenters, doctors (Ayurvedic practitioners), goldsmiths, weavers etc.[4]In the joint family system, members of a family pooled their resources to maintain the family and invest in business ventures. The system ensured younger members were trained and employed in the family business and the older and disabled persons would be supported by the family. The system, by preventing the agricultural land from being split ensured higher yield because of the benefits of scale. Such sanctions curbed the spirit of rivality in junior members and made a peculiar sense of obedience.[5]During the Maurya Empire (c. 321–185 BC), there were a number of important changes and developments to the Indian economy. It was the first time most of India was unified under one ruler. With an empire in place, the trade routes throughout India became more secure thereby reducing the risk associated with the transportation of goods. The empire spent considerable resources building roads and maintaining them throughout India. The improved infrastructure combined with increased security, greater uniformity in measurements, and increasing usage of coins as currency enhanced trade.[6]Under the Mughal EmpireA silver coin made during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Alamgir II.During the Mughal period (1526–1858) in the 16th century, the gross domestic product of India was estimated at about 25.1% of the world economy.An estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts the annual revenue of Emperor Akbar's treasury in 1600 at £17.5 million (in contrast to the entire treasury of Great Britain two hundred years later in 1800, which totaled £16 million). The gross domestic product of Mughal India in 1600 was estimated at about 24.3% the world economy, the second largest in the world.[7]By the late 17th century, the Mughal Empire was as its peak and had expanded to include almost 90 per cent of South Asia, and enforced a uniform customs and tax-administration system. In 1700 the exchequer of the Emperor Aurangzeb reported an annual revenue of more than £100 million. In the 18th century, Mughals were replaced by the Marathas as the dominant power in much of Indian, while the other small regional kingdoms who were mostly late Mughal tributaries such as the Nawabs in the north and the Nizams in the south, declared an autonomy. However, the efficient Mughal tax administration system was left largely intact.By this time, India had fallen from the top rank to become the second-largest economy in the world.[7] A devastating famine broke out in the eastern coast in early 1770s killing 5 per cent of the national population.[8] Economic historians in the 21st century have found that in the 18th century real wages were falling in India, and were "far below European levels."[9]British IndiaMain articles: Economy of India under Company rule and Economy of India under the British RajThe railway network in 1909 in British India.After gaining the right to collect revenue in Bengal in 1765, the East India Company largely ceased importing gold and silver, which it had hitherto used to pay for goods shipped back to Britain.[10] In addition, as under Mughal rule, land revenue collected in the Bengal Presidency helped finance the Company's wars in other part of India.[10] Consequently, in the period 1760–1800, Bengal's money supply was greatly diminished; furthermore, the closing of some local mints and close supervision of the rest, the fixing of exchange rates, and the standardization of coinage, paradoxically, added to the economic downturn.[10] During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[10] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[11] Also, from the late 18th century British cotton mill industry began to lobby the government to both tax Indian imports and allow them access to markets in India.[11] Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.[12]The British colonial rule created an institutional environment that stabilized law and order to a large extent. The British foreign policies however stifled the trade with rest of the world. They created a well-developed system of railways, telegraphs and a modern legal system. The infrastructure the British created was mainly geared towards the exploitation of resources in the world and totally stagnant, with industrial development stalled, agriculture unable to feed a rapidly accelerating population. They were subject to frequent famines, had one of the world's lowest life expectancies, suffered from pervasive malnutrition and were largely illiterate.Independent PakistanPart of a series on theHistory of modern PakistanPre-independenceBattle of Miani1843War of Independence1857–1858Aligarh Movement1859Urdu Movement1867British Raj1858–1947Muslim League Established1906Fourteen Points of Jinnah1929Pakistan Declaration1933Lahore Resolution1940Independence1947Post-independenceDominion of Pakistan1947-1956War of 19651965War of 19711971See also• History of Pakistan• Economic history of PakistanPakistan portal• v• t• ePakistan’s population has grown rapidly from around 30 million in 1947 to over 130 million in 1996. The rate of annual growth has averaged 3 percent since 1960.Pakistan's average economic growth rate since independence has been higher than the average growth rate of the world economy during the same period. Average annual real GDP growth rates[13] were 6.8% in the 1960s, 4.8% in the 1970s, and 6.5% in the 1980s. Average annual growth fell to 4.6% in the 1990s with significantly lower growth in the second half of that decade. See also[14]During the 1960s, Pakistan was seen as a model of economic development around the world, and there was much praise for its economic progression. The capital Karachi was seen as an economic role model around the world, and there was much praise for the way its economy was progressing.[who?] Many countries sought to emulate Pakistan's economic planning strategy and one of them, South Korea, copied the city's second "Five-Year Plan"; the World Financial Centre in Seoul is modeled after Karachi.1950s and 1960s: Initial DecadesBetween 27 October 1958 and 25 March 1969 under Ayub Khan Pakistan economic growth averaged 5.82% growth during his eleven years in office. Manufacturing growth in Pakistan during this time was 8.51%, far outpacing any other time in Pakistani history. It was the time when Pakistan first got an automobile industry, a cement industry and few other heavy manufacturing industries. However tax collection was low averaging less than 10% of GDP.[15] The Export Bonus Vouchers Scheme (1959) and tax incentives stimulated new industrial entrepreneurs and exporters. Bonus vouchers facilitated access to foreign exchange for imports of industrial machinery and raw materials.Tax concessions were offered for investment in less-developed areas. These measures had important consequences in bringing industry to Punjab and gave rise to a new class of small industrialists.[16] Land reform, consolidation of holdings, and stern measures against hoarding were combined with rural credit programs and work programs, higher procurement prices, augmented allocations for agriculture, and, especially, improved seeds were introduced as part of the green revolution. However, academics have argued that while the HYV technology enabled a sharp acceleration in agricultural growth, it was accompanied by social polarization and increased inter personal and inter regional inequality.[17]Mahbub ul Haq blamed the concentration of economic power to 22 families which were dominating the financial and economic life of the country controlling 66% of the industrial assets and 87% of the banking.[18] During the same period there were construction of several infrastructure projects (notably Tarbela Dam and Mangla Dam), including canals, dams and power stations, began Pakistan's space programme.In 1959 the country began the construction of its new capital city.[19] A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city based on a grid plan which was triangular in shape with its apex towards the Margalla Hills.[20] The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi in the early sixties and then to Islamabad when the essential development work was completed in 1966.[21]Economy of East Bengal in PakistanThe partition of British India and the emergence of India and Pakistan in 1947 severely disrupted the economic system. The united government of Pakistan expanded the cultivated area and some irrigation facilities, but the rural population generally became poorer between 1947 and 1971 because improvements did not keep pace with rural population increase.[22] Pakistan's five-year plans opted for a development strategy based on industrialization, but the major share of the development budget went to West Pakistan, that is, contemporary Pakistan.[22] The lack of natural resources meant that East Pakistan was heavily dependent on imports, creating a balance of payments problem.[22] Without a substantial industrialization program or adequate agrarian expansion, the economy of East Pakistan steadily declined.[22] Blame was placed by various observers, but especially those in East Pakistan, on the West Pakistani leaders who not only dominated the government but also most of the fledgling industries in East Pakistan.[22]1970s: Nationalization and Command EconomyTarbela Dam is the largest earth filled dam in the world, was constructed in 1968.Prime Minister Secretariat in the new capital citySpread over 1700 acres Quaid-i-Azam University was constructed in 1967Pakistan Steel Mills was constructed in 1973, making it the largest industrial mega-corporation having a production capacity of 5.0 million tonnes of steelEconomic mismanagement in general, and fiscally imprudent economic policies in particular, caused a large increase in the country's public debt and led to slower growth in the 1990s. Two wars with India - the Second Kashmir War in 1965 and the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 - and the resultant separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan also adversely affected economic growth.[23] In particular, the latter war brought the economy close to recession, although economic output rebounded sharply until the nationalisations of the mid-1970s. The economy recovered during the 1980s via a policy of deregulation, as well as an increased inflow of foreign aid and remittances from expatriate workers.According to Muhammad Abrar Zahoor, nationalization of industries was concerned, it can be divided into two phases. The first phase started soon after the PPP came into power and the motivation behind it was distributional concerns — to bring under state control the financial and physical capital controlled by a tiny corporate elite. However, in 1974, influence and authority of the left wing within the party significantly decreased: they had either been marginalized or purged.5 The second phase began in 1974 and the motives and effects of the secondary phase of nationalizations differed from the initial phase. While the first phase was the result of a well thought out strategy motivated by ideological forces, the subsequent phase was the outcome of ad hoc responses to various situations.6 During 1974-76, the style of economic management Bhutto adopted reduced the role of Planning Commission as well as its capacity to offer advice to the political decision-makers. Corruption grew exponentially and access to state corridors became a primary avenue of accumulating a private fortune. In the way, groups and individuals in command of state institutions used public intervention in the "economy as a means for extending their wealth and power."[24]Bhutto introduced socialist economics policies while working to prevent any further division of the country. Major heavy mechanical, chemical, and electrical engineering industries were immediately nationalised by Bhutto, and all of the industries came under direct control of government. Industries, such as KESC were under complete government control with no private influence in KESC decision. Bhutto abandoned Ayub Khan's state capitalism policies, and introduced socialist policies in a move to reduce the rich get richer and poor get poorer ratio. Bhutto also established the Port Qasim, Pakistan Steel Mills, the Heavy Mechanical Complex (HMC) and several cement factories.However, the growth rate of economy relative to that of the 1960s when East Pakistan was still part of Pakistan and large generous aid from the United Statee declined, after the global oil crises in 1973, which also had a negative impact on the economy.[25]Economic growth slowed in the wake of nationalisation. This is corroborated by the fact that whereas during 1960s, Pakistan's economy grew on average at 6.8 per cent per annum, during 1970s, growth rate fell to 4.8 per cent per annum on average. It is also true that most of the nationalised units went into loss, because decisions were not market-based. However, rapid economic growth is not the only macro-economic objective of a government. The government has also distributional objectives so as to reduce economic disparities. During 1960s rapid economic growth was accompanied by concentration of resources in a few hands.[26]1980s-1999: Era of Privatization and StagnationPakistan developed first motorway in South Asia in 1997, today it has expanded to 1,502 km long networkSoviet–Afghan War, Significantly effected the economy of Pakistan with approximately 1.7 million Afghan refugees moving to PakistanBenazir Bhutto twice led the country during this period and promoted social-capitalist policiesJinnah International Airport was greatly expanded in 1994 making it a regional aviation hubPeriods GDP Growth Rate↓(according to Sartaj Aziz) Inflation Rate↑(according to Sartaj Aziz)1988-89 4.88%[27]10.39%[27]1989-90 4.67%[27]6.04%[27]1990-91 5.48%[27]12.66%[27]1991-92 7.68%[27]9.62%[27]1992-93 3.03%[27]11.66%[27]1993-94 4.0%[27]11.80%[27]1994-95 4.5%[27]14.5%[27]1995-96 1.70% 10.79%[28]According to Sushil Khanna, professor at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, the Pakistani economy under Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq benefited from a number of special factors, both domestic and external. The completion of the long gestation period Tarbela Dam helped unleash an unprecedented agricultural growth, while fertilizer and cement investments undertaken under Bhutto contributed to the industrial growth. Tremendous boost to economic activity was provided by rising worker remittances, which rose to a peak of US $3 billion in 1982-83. In 1982-83, these remittances were equivalent to 10% of the gross national product of Pakistan. Zia also successfully negotiated with USA for larger external assistance, unprecedented in the history of Pakistan. In addition to direct assistance to Pakistan, the United States and allies funneled about US $5–7 billion to the Afghan Mujahedins through Pakistan, providing further boost to the local economy. Similarly, the narcotic trade which gathered momentum in the 1980s strongly supported the service sector of the economy. Under Zia, the economic policies became market oriented. Buoyant remittances and aid eased the foreign exchange constraints on the economy.[29]As an aftermath of the 1990 general elections, the right-wing conservatives under the leadership of Nawaz Sharif came to the power for the first time in the history of Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif strike the stagflation with full force after forcefully implementing the Privatization and economic liberalization programmes.[30] The stagflation was temporarily ended in the country. However, Sharif's programmes were widely criticized by Pakistan Peoples Party in state media and the growth did not contain the sustainability.[30] The privatization programme under the economic liberalisation programme came with largely surrounded controversies and reckless by Nawaz Sharif to implement his programme.According to the Pakistan Peoples Party, Nawaz Sharif's government arbitrarily fixing the reference prices of the (privatized) state units and ignoring those suggested by the evaluations; though, Sartaj Aziz strongly dismissed the claims.[31]After returning to power with heavy margins, Nawaz Sharif made several attempts to end the stagflation in the country. Overall, the conditions had been worsened and a year after being elected, Sharif ordered the nuclear tests in a response to India's nuclear aggression. Despite the Asian financial crises in 1997 and Russian financial crises in 1998, and amid economic sanctions in the wake of nuclear tests, the foreign exchange increased to $1.5 billion, the stock market improved and inflation was contained at 3.5% as opposed to 7% in 1993-96. Sharif's second government restored the GDP growth to 3.49% in 1997, tough inflation remains high at 11.80%. Little progress was made by Sharif in 1998, and his reforms only leveled up the GDP growth to 4.19%, while retaining the inflation and unemployment at 7.8%.[32]2000s: Economic Liberalization, Growth and Re-stagnationJF-17 Thunder became the first indigenous combat aircraft produced by the country.The poverty expenditure rate statistically dropped to 34.5%—17.2% in 2008 as part of the privatization programme.PTCL was privatized in 2005, which boosted revenue of over $1 billionStatue of a bull outside Islamabad Stock Exchange emphasis on countries economic recordUnder Shaukat Aziz's government, the country's national economic growth improved at the rate range by 6.4% to 9.0% a year.[33] All revenue collection targets were met on time for the first time in the history of Pakistan, and allocation for development was increased by about 40%.[34] However, this economical success is attributed largely to debt reduction and securing of the billion dollars worth US aid to Pakistan in return for the support in the US-led war on terror.[33] Moreover, despite a series of internal and external distresses, economic situation of Pakistan improved significantly and reserves increased to US$10.7bn on 30 June 2004 as compared to US$1.2bn October 1999. Exchange Rate became stable and predictable; the inflation rate dropped to 3.5% last 3 years as against 11–12% in 1990.The administration of Yousaf Raza Gillani oversaw the dramatic high rise in suicide, corruption, national security, high unemployment, and without the sustainable economic policies along with compilation of other factors, the country's economy re-entered in the "era of stagflation" (a virtual period that country had seen in 1990s earlier).[35][36][37] The Pakistan economy slowed down dramatically to ~4.09% as compared to 8.96%—9.0% presided under his predecessor, Shaukat Aziz in 2004–08; while the yearly growth rate has come down from a long-term average of 5.0% to ~2.0%, though it did not reached to negative level.[36] Calculation performed by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, it pointed out that the "nation's currency in circulation as a percentage of total deposits is 31%, which is very high as compared to India", where 40.0% of the population fell under the line of poverty, with 16.0% rise in the inflation during his four years of presiding over the country.[38] The new strict and tight monetary policy could not tame the soaring inflation, it did stagnate the economic growth.[37] One economist maintained that stagflation took place when the tight monetary policy did not encourage the strong private sector to play a key part in growth. Analyzing the stagflation problem, the PIDE observed that a major cause of continuous era of stagflation in Pakistan was lack of coordination between fiscal and monetary authorities.[37][38]Since 2013: Privatization and Liberalization3000 km long China–Pakistan Economic Corridor construction begin in 2015Pakistan rolled out 4G in 2014, aiming to capitalize on over 140 million mobile phones in the countrySeveral mass transit system's have been developed throughout Pakistan.Fiscal Year GDP growth Inflation rate2013–14[39]4.14%[40]8.5%|[41]2014–15 4.24% 4.8%[42]2015–16 4.5% Projected[43]5.1%[42]Sharif inherited an economy crippled with many challenges including energy shortages, hyperinflation, mild economic growth, high debt and large budget deficit. Shortly after taking power in 2013, Sharif won a $6.6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to avoid a balance-of-payments crisis. Lower oil prices, higher remittances and increased consumer spending are pushing growth toward a seven-year high of 4.3 percent in the fiscal year of FY2014-15.[44] Pakistan's GDP growth rate for FY 2012-2013 was down to 3.59% with estimates suggesting that it will only reach 3.65% by the end of 2013 however the government expects to increase it to 5.8% for FY 2014-2015. Business confidence in Pakistan is at a three-year high in May 2014 largely backed by increasing foreign reserves to $10b while it is expected that they will cross $15 billion by mid-2014. Along with that, in May 2014 IMF[45] claimed that Inflation has dropped to 13 per cent compared to 25% in 2008, foreign reserves are in a better position and the current account deficit has come down to 3 per cent of GDP for 2014. Standard & Poor's and Moody's Corporation changed Pakistan's ranking to stable outlook on the long-term rating.[46][47][48]On 5 May 2015, Standard & Poor's revised projections for Pakistan's average real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth for 2015 to 2017 to 4.6 per cent from 3.8 per cent and also upped its outlook on Pakistan's long-term 'B-' credit rating to ‘positive’ from ‘stable’. S&P attributes the largely positive projections to diversification in income generation, the government's efforts towards fiscal consolidation, improvement in external financing conditions and performance, and stronger capital inflows and remittances.[49] Forbes on 4 March 2016, termed Pakistan's economy is on track to become an emerging market in Asia. Claiming that Pakistan’s growing middle class, which will expand from an estimated 40 million people in 2016 to 100 million people by 2050 is ket to countries economic prospects.[50] On Jun 19, 2016, Reuters claimed that Pakistani stocks are soaring, improved security is fuelling economic growth and the South Asian nation will be upgraded to "emerging market" status by index provider MSCI.[51]Pakistan's GDP is projected by the World Bank to grow by 4.5%. In its South Asian Growth report, the World Bank said, "In Pakistan, gradual recovery to around 4.5 per cent growth by 2016 is aided by low inflation and fiscal consolidation. Increases in remittances and stable agricultural performance contribute to this outcome. But further acceleration requires tackling pervasive power cuts, a cumbersome business environment, and low access to finance. "[52] In FY2016, the current account deficit has widen marginally due to increase in trade deficit.[53] Nevertheless, exports are expected to increase only slightly after 2 years of stagnation,[54] as manufacturing continues to suffer under energy shortages and low cotton prices saw only a modest increase.[55] In his 2016 book, The Rise and Fall of Nations, Ruchir Sharma termed Pakistan’s economy as on a 'take-off' stage and the future outlook till 2020 has been termed ‘Very Good’. Sharma termed it possible to transform Pakistan from a "low-income to a middle-income country during the next five years."[56]On Oct 31, 2016, Standard & Poor's, by citing improved policymaking resulting in improved macroeconomic stability, raised Pakistan's rating to B from B-. It also revised upward its forecast of average annual GDP growth to five per cent over 2016-2019 from its earlier estimate of 4.7 per cent.[57] In response to S&P's upgrade, PSX's benchmark-100 index posted its largest gain in history, increasing 1,406.03 points (or 3.52%) over a single day.[58] On November 1, 2016, hundreds of Chinese trucks loaded with goods rolled into the Sost dry port in Gilgit-Baltistan as the first shipment of China–Pakistan Economic Corridor.[59] On 3 November 2016, the Sharif government announced that Renault is expected to start assembling cars in Pakistan by 2018, a source earlier in May 6, 2016 had told Reuters that Pakistan was under consideration for new production investment.[60][61] On November 7, 2016, Bloomberg News claimed that the economy is expected to grow around five percent annually for the next three years and claimed that "Pakistan is on the verge of an investment-led growth cycle."[62] On January 10th, 2017, The Economist forecasted Pakistan's GDP to grow at 5.3% in 2017, making it the fifth fastest growing economy in the world and the fastest growing in the Muslim world.[63][64]