Hongera JK kwa kututoa katika Umaskini duniani! ila bado ....

Mdondoaji said:

Mkuu,

Per capital income ni kwamba inachukuliwa total GDP divide by the population of the country. Tunapata kitu kinaitwa GDP per capital or jina jengine kila mtanzania anategemewa kuwa na kiwango gani cha fedha kwa mwaka nchini kwake. Kawaida hii sio accurate measure of the distribution of income ya nchi ila ni estimation kutokana jumla ya pato la uzalishaji nchini na watu walioko nchini. Ni kipimo cha kutizama nguvu ya thamani ya sarafu (Purchasing power). Duniani sasa hivi nchi tajiri duniani ni Qatar ikifuatiwa na Lincheinstein wakati nchi maskini duniani ni Congo wakifuatiwa na Liberia na Burundi

Tanzania imejitahidi sana kutoka 1980 ambapo la kila mtanzania lilikuwa $386 per person kufikia hadi $1410 per person. Pato la $386 Tanzania tulikuwa nchi zinazoshika mkia kwa umaskini duniani. Leo hii Tanzania tuko nyuma ya Kenya kwa nafasi mbili tu Kwani Kenya pato la Mkenya ni $ 1616 wakati sisi ni $1,410. Wakaze buti tutafanikiwa kuwazidi.

Click to expand...

Mbona unang'ang'aniza watu tumpongeze? Kama unataka si utafute baiskeli uendeshe kama yule msukuma baada ya uchaguzi ukampongeze?

Mkuu hayo ya Wabrazil kuja kutusaidia kwenye masuala ya umeme nyingi ni polojo tu, ukiritimba uliyojaa katika nchi yetu na rushwa umevisahau?. Alafu masuala ya kusema Per capita Income ya mtanzania imepanda kulinganisha na ile ya miaka ya 80s ni irrelevant katika maisha ya Mtanzania. Huoni $380 kwa miaka ya 80s ilikuwa na purchasing power zaidi ya $1400 ya sasa? Na hauoni maisha ya sasa ndo yanazidi kuwa magumu zaidi ya hayo ya miaka ya late '80s na '90s kwa mtanzania wa kawaida japo hizo statistics zinaonyesha GDP per capita imepanda? Hata economics inatuambia GDP per capita is not a reflection of peoples' real lives in terms of purchasing power and standard of living. Je hizostatics figures kwako zina umuhimu kuliko maisha halisia ya mtanzania?

Kasesela said:

Mdondoaji, Is GDP a satisfactory measure of growth?

If ever there was a controversial icon from the statistics world, GDP is it. It measures income, but not equality, it measures growth, but not destruction, and it ignores values like social cohesion and the environment. Yet, governments, businesses and probably most people swear by it. According to François Lequiller*, head of national accounts at the OECD, part of the problem is that perhaps we expect too much from this trusty, though misunderstood, indicator. He explains.

Is GDP a satisfactory measure of growth?
François Lequiller: If by growth you mean the expansion of output of goods and services, then GDP or preferably real GDP – which measures growth without the effects of inflation – is perfectly satisfactory. It has been built for this purpose. The letter P stands for "Product", the result of production. Gross Domestic Product is defined as the sum of all goods and services produced in a country over time, without double counting products used in other output. It is a comprehensive measure, covering the production of consumer goods and services, even government services, and investment goods.
In this single number, you get an idea of whether the economy is expanding or contracting. Paul Samuelson, Nobel Laureate and author of many textbook references, once described GDP as "truly among the great inventions of the 20th century, a beacon that helps policymakers steer the economy toward key economic objectives".
But, the public is so used to GDP that we sometimes forget how hard it is to accurately sum all of the goods and services produced in a country together, from bricks and tableware to banking and software. First of all, to make such aggregating possible, you need to define what production is and what it is not. Our conventions may sometimes look arbitrary, such as when we exclude the output of domestic work that is carried out in the home. We do not consider, for example, that taking care of one's own children is production, whereas we do when a hired nanny does the same work.
Then, you need good statistics, which are not always easy to gather. For example, there are, by definition, hardly any statistics available on the underground economy. Third, we need a sophisticated system that can add it all together, from the number of new cars and haircuts, to the volume of teaching, etc. In GDP, each component is given the weight of its relative price. In market economies, this works because prices reflect both the marginal cost for the producer and the marginal utility for the consumer: people sell at a price that other people are willing to pay. But the contribution to welfare of the output of government services, in particular public education and health, which by definition have no market prices, is difficult to measure, despite their importance in our economies.
Finally, one could also recommend users to look at alternative measures to GDP that exist inside the national accounts, such as Net Domestic Product or National Income. These may be more suitable for measuring particular contexts (See GDP and GNI).
How might GDP be expanded, for instance, to capture wellbeing?
First, it is inaccurate to say that GDP does not capture wellbeing. It captures at least the wellbeing that results from the production of goods and services. Indeed, when statisticians quantify the goods and services produced, they take into account their utility to the consumer. Nevertheless, it is true that there are other dimensions to wellbeing which GDP misses. And it is often said, sometimes cynically, that GDP increases when there are car accidents, or that while the terrible destruction of the recent tsunami in Asia undermined GDP by wiping out communities and their economic activities, it would at the same time lead to a boost in GDP, thanks to rebuilding, new investment and so on! However, this should not be held as a criticism of GDP, which is simply a measure of production.
If you want a number which will capture the negative effects of accidents on wealth, use the national accounts system, which contains many different aggregates, of which GDP is only one. It provides a general measure of the stock of national assets: the nation's "balance sheet", so to speak. The trouble is, few countries compile one.
On the other hand, neither GDP nor this balance sheet takes account of environmental degradation, insecurity or inequality. The main obstacle to overcome in deriving a single measure for all these dimensions is finding a convincing proxy price – or imputed price – for each and every component, on top of goods and services. Without such imputed prices, it is impossible to combine the various indicators that contribute to our wellbeing. The UN Human Development Indicator is a good attempt, and academics, such as William Nordhaus or Andrew Sharpe, have come up with some interesting possibilities. However, many statisticians, including me, are wary of adding too many imputations that could end up weakening the GDP indicator. We prefer instead to produce a suite of indicators.
An example is the Australian Bureau of Statistics' publication, Measuring Australia's Progress, whose indicators cover health, education, environment, crime and social attachment. The OECD's new publication, OECD Factbook 2005 is essentially in the same mould, and allows the user to assess how countries are performing on several fronts. In addition, international organisations, like the OECD, have developed systems to account for the environment, such as the System of Economic Environmental Accounts (SEEA), but these are in addition to GDP, and are not incorporated within it. GDP is a beacon, but it is not the only one.
So GDP is here to stay?
The times of major change, such as the one to include non-market production in GDP some 30 years ago, have passed, so do not expect any radical upheavals. Nevertheless, we are trying to strengthen GDP as an indicator. Statisticians at the OECD and around the world are currently discussing new reforms to the current system of national accounts, which should enter into force in 2008. One such reform now under consideration is how to recognise spending on research and development as investment, since at present, in business as in national accounting, these expenditures are seen as being consumed immediately, and so do not contribute to market GDP or to the stock of assets. If the reform goes ahead, their true contribution over time would be counted, which is intellectually more satisfying. Counting R&D in this way would raise the absolute level of GDP for OECD countries by around 2%, depending on the level of research and development expenditures in each country. While this would be a significant reform, it still depends on getting good quality data. Without them, the beacon of GDP would become dimmer, and we certainly do not want that to happen.
*Mr Lequiller heads the National Accounts work at the OECD, and is a former chief of national accounts at the National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE).

Click to expand...

This is why GDP has continued to be used by OECD, World Bank, IMF and other leading economist in the world as metric of measuring wealth being of individuals. Despite its criticism on data quality and time as well as posibility of revision on the data due to realiability issues but it remain a strong indicator of economic sucess.

Acha pumba, GDP gani imeongezeka., umasikini ndo kwanza unaota mizizi Tanzania.

Massenberg said:

Mbona unang'ang'aniza watu tumpongeze? Kama unataka si utafute baiskeli uendeshe kama yule msukuma baada ya uchaguzi ukampongeze?

Click to expand...

Mkuu,

Nimempongeza binafsi na yeyote atakayeona anafaa kupongezwa. Ikiwa unaona hafai kupongezwa unaweza kuwa kimya. Sina haja ya kwenda kumuona kwani figures na statistics zipo na zinajionyesha zenyewe atapongezwa tu na economists watakaona anafaa kupongezwa. Ila mkuu kama una wivu na hilo pole. It is his success and he deserve it kama hupendi pole sana.

Msarendo said:

Acha pumba, GDP gani imeongezeka., umasikini ndo kwanza unaota mizizi Tanzania.

Click to expand...

Kama hamfanyi kazi unafikiri umaskini utaondoka? Vijana kila siku wanaamka kutafuta wapi wakaimbe bongo flava wapate 20,000 ya kwenda kupatakilaji usiku it is time watu waamke kufanya kitu productive with their lives. Elimu yetu inaporomoka kila siku thanks to miundo mbinu mibovu ya serikali na mwamko mbovu wetu katika elimu. Vijana wetu wasome elimu za watu wazima, wajishughulishe na shughuli zenye kuwaletea maendeleo wao na taifa. Serikali yetu ina matatizo na sisi pia tuna matatizo yetu acha pumba ndugu.

Unaishi TZ? AU NI MTANZANIA UNAYEISHI MAREKANI? HAIWEZIKANI MTANZANIA ANAYEISH TANZANIA AKAANDIKA UPUMBAVU HUU.

Qatar, a country of fewer than 2 million people set on a peninsula smaller than Connecticut, seems an unlikely candidate to become a regional power. Yet with little fanfare and less warning, tiny Qatar has emerged as one of the Middle East's most influential states.
As the U.S. struggles to understand and predict the new contours of the region, it would be wise to pursue even closer ties to this regional maverick.
Even with its demographic and geographic limits, Qatar has several assets that turn out to be in short supply elsewhere in the Middle East and to be of strategic value, given the tumult in the region.
First, it is home to al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news network that has transformed how Arabs get their news. Many give the television channel more credit for spurring on the Arab Spring than Facebook or Twitter. By bringing the revolutions into the homes of every Arab, al-Jazeera drew regional attention to early events in Tunisia and helped boost the number of Egyptians on the streets from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands. Al-Jazeera gives Qatar "soft power" well beyond its size.

Second, Qatar has resources. Last month, the International Monetary Fund released data demonstrating that Qatar is the richest country in the world. With a per-capita income of more than $88,000, Qatar's citizens are better off than those of Luxembourg and are almost twice as rich as those of the U.S. This wealth -- and the annual growth rate of 16 percent that goes with it -- is a reflection of Qatar's vast riches.

Qatar's natural-gas reserves of more than 900 trillion cubic feet are the third-largest in the world, and the country is reaping the benefits of an ambitious program to monetize those resources. Estimates suggest earnings from its liquefied natural-gas in 2011 will increase by more than 50 percent from last year.

Finally, Qatar has comparatively uncomplicated politics, a rarity in the Middle East today. The country is run by Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, an emir who, in his late 50s, is decades younger than his counterparts in the gulf. While advised by a powerful prime minister (who is also a cousin), the emir is the ultimate authority in Qatar, streamlining decision-making. Partially on account of its small size, wealth and security service, Qatar has avoided the political turmoil of some other Middle Eastern states. Its government feels -- and is -- comparatively secure.

While the domestic politics of many other countries in the Arab world are forcing the attention of their leaders inward, Qatar has marshaled its assets and has embarked on an aggressive plan to shape the region.

In recent years, Qatar focused its energies on being a neutral party facilitating diplomatic compromises. It worked diligently to help broker the accord between Fatah and Hamas; it helped resolve a Lebanese impasse over the formation of the government in 2008; it even gets credit from the Sudanese for assisting in a political understanding over Darfur.

Such behavior was consistent with the obvious needs of a small country in a dangerous and difficult part of the world. Qatar sought to establish relationships with as many countries and parties as possible, and endeavored to prove its indispensability without ever taking sides on the region's many sensitive matters.

But since the onset of the Arab Spring, Qatar has adopted a more aggressive and potentially more risky foreign policy. It no longer seems satisfied with balancing its relationships with the greater powers -- be they the U.S., Iran or Saudi Arabia. Instead, it sees a window to steer and shape events, senses its comparative strengths, and has embarked upon a series of bold endeavors.

In Libya, Qatar was the first Arab state to vocally endorse military intervention against Muammar Qaddafi, prodding the Arab League to make the statement that ultimately gave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization political cover for its support of the revolutionaries. Going beyond rhetoric, Qatar provided six mirage jet planes to the fight -- offering Arab credibility to the military operation. In Syria, Qatar has lent the weight of al-Jazeera to those seeking to end the Assad regime.

Even the priorities of its $100 billion sovereign-wealth fund, the Qatar Investment Authority, have changed. Formerly focused on trophy investments such as Harrods Department Store Co. or "passive" ones intended primarily to collect returns, Qatar is now turning to strategic investments in companies and countries with which it intends to build cooperative ventures and wield influence. For example, electricity-hungry Qatar bought a stake in Spain's largest power utility, Iberdrola SA, for more than $2 billion earlier this year.

Qatar seems committed to shaping the political and economic outcomes that will emerge from the regional volatility it is helping create. Already, it is actively aiding the Libyan National Transitional Council as it thinks through reforming that country's national oil company, and there is talk of Qatar helping Libya explore its gas reserves. A Qatari-Libyan gas partnership would help Qatar address one of its primary strategic worries: the loss of markets for its gas in Europe.

In Egypt, Qatar has planted a flag with the announcement it intends to invest $10 billion there in the coming years. And in Sudan, Qatar will play a role in enforcing the new "Doha Document for Peace in Darfur," which was accepted by Sudanese parties as the framework for conflict resolution.

The key question for the U.S. is what does a region with a strong Qatari guiding hand look like? What kind of Arab world is Qatar seeking to achieve?

The answers aren't entirely evident. One could make the case that a more active Qatar, which is already home to the U.S. military's Central Command, is good for American interests. Qatar -- with its large investments in Western-style higher education, its relatively pragmatic approach to Israel, and its (still-too-modest) allowance of women's participation in municipal elections -- might be a moderating force in the region.

Yet one might make an equally compelling case that Qatar has little interest in political liberalization in the Middle East (given its own closed system and its support for Saudi troops in Bahrain) and that its activism is grounded in a desire to supplant global energy markets with state-to-state bilateral deals. After all, Qatar's long-term well-being rests on global gas consumption and the nation's ability to capture highly competitive markets. Although Qatar has shown little interest in Iran's entreaties for the formation of an OPEC-like gas cartel, a change of heart in this direction could harm America's allies, if not America itself, which is almost self- sufficient in terms of natural gas.

A year ago, such questions would have been for curious minds or academic interest. Today, with the Arab world in tumult and Qatar in high gear, it is of high strategic importance.

The U.S. is, no doubt, trying to do more than read the tea leaves -- or rather, the coffee grounds -- in the region. It needs to build and strengthen new strategic partnerships with regional actors, especially those that have the resources and imagination to shape events beyond their borders. Qatar should be on or near the top of its list. U.S.-Qatari relations are cordial and positive. But the warmth and strength of this relationship has been limited by Qatar's need to balance its ties with Iran, with which it shares an enormous gas field.

In recent months, the small emirate has moved away from a foreign policy based on hedging, toward a bolder and riskier approach. This seems to butt up against, or even challenge, some of Iran's most central interests. Qatar's encouragement of the revolution against Bashar al-Assad in Syria and its support of the status quo in Bahrain are two cases in point. This shift -- while opening Qatar to a possible Iranian backlash -- could provide the U.S. with an opening to strengthen ties.

What can the U.S. do? First, it might build on the meeting between President Barack Obama and the emir in April, and schedule more high-visibility encounters between U.S. and Qatari officials. This may seem insignificant to Americans, but such sessions hold great importance for Qataris, who prize prestige and recognition.
Second, the U.S. should trade in its ambivalence about Qatar's regional diplomacy in exchange for a warm embrace of it. Qatar's tendency to have relationships with everyone -- friend and foe, including the Taliban when it ruled Afghanistan -- has historically made the U.S. uncomfortable. But in a transformed region, Qatar's Rolodex may allow it to shape the region -- ideally with the quiet support of America.
Third, the U.S. should work with Qatar, and possibly other Gulf states, to craft economic support packages to post- revolutionary states. The U.S. might lend expertise and organization in Egypt and Libya, while Qatar foots more of the bill.
Finally, the U.S. should cultivate greater links between Qatar and American businesses. Qatar plans $100 billion in infrastructure projects in the run-up to its hosting the 2022 soccer World Cup; many U.S. companies could profit from these ambitions. This is how the fabric of closer bilateral ties is woven, and the payoff goes well beyond corporate profits.

Source: Bloomberg.


(Meghan L. O'Sullivan, a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and former deputy national security adviser, is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Pateni darasa kutoka kwa Professor Sullivan. Mtajifunza kujua kwanini nampongeza JK kwa kazi aliyoifanya. Job well done Mr President!!!!

Mdondoaji,

Mkuu wangu nitakwambia mara ngapi swala la GDP per capital ili upate kuelewa?. Makuzi ya mwili mkuu wangu hayana mahusiano kabisa na AFYA bora tunachoonyeshwa hapa ni jinsi Tanzania ilivyoongeza mauzo yake toka mwaka 1980 hadi 2010 lakini ongezeko hilo halina mahusiano ya wananchi wake..Kwa mfano mwaka 1980 tuliuza billioni 7.7 tukiwa millioni 20, wakafanya mahesabu na kupata GDP per capital (386.55) na kweli fedha zote za mauzo ziliiingia ktk mzunguko nchini kama pato la taifa kutokana na kwamba mali zote zilikuwa za wananchi.

Tofauti na mwaka 2010 ambao tumeuza mathlan bil 708.0 tukiwa millioni 50 (GDP 1416) lakini mauzo yamefanywa na mashirika ya nje kina Barrick ambao pato lote limekwenda Canada na kilichorudi nchini ni fedha za matumizi yao kwa mwaka pamoja na asilimia 1.1 ya ruzuku. Kusema wewe unafaidika na mauzo makubwa ya Barrick ati wachumi wamesema hivyo ni kujidaganya ama unataka kuiridhisha nafsi yako!

Kwa hiyo, tuwe makini sana ktk kutazama vitu hivi ambavyo vimetengenezwa kwa ajili ya wazungu, kwanza kwao wao hakuna kitu kama Barrick wanavyotufanyia sisi yaani kampuni ya nje liwekeze Marekani wakati accounts zake ziko nje ya Marekani - Haiwezekani kabisa! Kwa hiyo, tukirudi kwetu the only real sale na makuzi ya uchumi yapo ktk kilimo hiki pekee ndio kina mahusiano direct na wananchi lakini vitu vingine vyote ni sawa na kuupigia mahesabu utajiri wa kaka yako..

Mkandara said:

Mdondoaji,

Mkuu wangu nitakwambia mara ngapi swala la GDP per capital ili upate kuelewa?. Makuzi ya mwili mkuu wangu hayana mahusiano kabisa na AFYA bora tunachoonyeshwa hapa ni jinsi Tanzania ilivyoongeza mauzo yake toka mwaka 1980 hadi 2010 lakini ongezeko hilo halina mahusiano ya wananchi wake..Kwa mfano mwaka 1980 tuliuza billioni 7.7 tukiwa millioni 20, wakafanya mahesabu na kupata GDP per capital (386.55) na kweli fedha zote za mauzo ziliiingia ktk mzunguko nchini kama pato la taifa kutokana na kwamba mali zote zilikuwa za wananchi.

Tofauti na mwaka 2010 ambao tumeuza mathlan bil 708.0 tukiwa millioni 50 (GDP 1416) lakini mauzo yamefanywa na mashirika ya nje kina Barrick ambao pato lote limekwenda Canada na kilichorudi nchini ni fedha za matumizi yao kwa mwaka pamoja na asilimia 1.1 ya ruzuku. Kusema wewe unafaidika na mauzo makubwa ya Barrick ati wachumi wamesema hivyo ni kujidaganya ama unataka kuiridhisha nafsi yako!

Kwa hiyo, tuwe makini sana ktk kutazama vitu hivi ambavyo vimetengenezwa kwa ajili ya wazungu, kwanza kwao wao hakuna kitu kama Barrick wanavyotufanyia sisi yaani kampuni ya nje liwekeze Marekani wakati accounts zake ziko nje ya Marekani - Haiwezekani kabisa! Kwa hiyo, tukirudi kwetu the only real sale na makuzi ya uchumi yapo ktk kilimo hiki pekee ndio kina mahusiano direct na wananchi lakini vitu vingine vyote ni sawa na kuupigia mahesabu utajiri wa kaka yako..

Click to expand...

Kamanda Mkandara,

Mkuu wangu GDP per capital metric has got its own weakness but it remain to be strong economic indicator for economic changes and performance. Kuna mchina mmoja alikuja na model moja complicated nadhani imetupiliwa mbali kwani GDP is robust since it also takes into account the utility of consumers. Huwezi kuwa unanunua mkate kama huupendi na hivyo unavyonunua mkate inamaana umeridhika nao.

Tukirejea katika hoja yako unarudi nilichokisema mkuu kuwa distribution of income but ni kikwazo nchini kwetu. Watu wachache ndio wanamiliki uchumi wa nchi yetu. Pia wazungu wanatuibia na kuchukua baadhi ya mapato yetu la msingi ni kuziba mianya hiyo. Nashukuru umelitolea mfano Barrick kama umenisoma nyuma Barrick imekuwa listed canada na london. Kwanini wasiishinikize Barrick walist kampuni yao DSE ya Tanzania? Wakilist serikali itaweza kuwakata kodi, mishahara ya wafanyakazi wao itakatwa kodi, na pia tutapata mrahaba wanaotudanganya nao wa asilimia 3.

Ni mipango tu mkuu. Hebu niambie sarakasi ya makampuni ya mahoteli makubwa kwani serikali yetu inashindwa nini kuwadhibiti? Kila siku wanabadilisha majina kuendelea kukwepa kodi. Serikali inashindwa kuzuia mianya hiyo. Watu wanapangisha watu nyumba hawalipi kodi serikalini je unalizungumzaje? Ni mipango tu mkuu but for this hata wewe you have to acknowledge him kuwa ni mafanikio yake.

Angel msoffe said:

Unaishi TZ? AU NI MTANZANIA UNAYEISHI MAREKANI? HAIWEZIKANI MTANZANIA ANAYEISH TANZANIA AKAANDIKA UPUMBAVU HUU.

Click to expand...

Wewe nenda kule kwenye thread zenu za kusifia magwanda huku ni maji marefu

Mdondoaji said:

Mkuu,

Nionyeshe wapi nimejichanganya nijirekebishe. Pili JK simsifu kwa lolote when it comes kusimamia suala la mafisadi maana ni mchezo wa sarakasi ila penye pongezi apewe. Tatu fikra ya kwamba watu wanakuibia inabidi ujiulize ulikuwa wapi mpaka wamekuibia kama sisi wenye hatujalala. Tusimamie kupata katiba mpya itakayotuwezesha kumbana rais tunayemwajiri ili ajibu kwa waajiri wake.

Sweke,

Ni kweli vijana inawezekana wanajituma ila hawafahamu wapi pa kujituma wakapata mafanikio. Nitakupa mfano vijana wengi wameshikilia fani ya mziki kama njia ya kuwatoa kimaisha, wengine katika masuala ya urembo. Matokeo yake kusoma wengine wameona hakuna umuhimu. Leo hii vijana mpaka vijijini utakuta anamjua Diamond, Wema Sepetu na wengineo ukimuuliza 5x6 hajui.

Isitoshe hawafahamu wapi pa kupatia mafanikio hebu angalia zanzibar sasa hivi vijana wengine wameacha kuimba imba na biashara zisizo na maana wanalima karafuu. Wanafanikiwa ile mbaya wengine mpaka maisha yao yameanza kubadilika. Sisi Tanzania bara vijana wetu nikuulize wangapi wamelichukua uzito suala la kilimo kwanza?

Pia wangapi wamejishughulisha kulima kwa kupata maisha bora badala yake tunakimbilia mijini kufanya kazi za ulinzi. Tuweni wakweli? 70% of vijana according to Wizara ya vijana are considered to be unemployed hasa in urban areas wanafanya nini wasiende kulima?

Ulaya na Marekani matajiri wakubwa ni wakulima. Badala yake ukienda huko vijijini unawakuta Wakenya wametapakaa na wazimbabwe sisi tuko busy na kazi za ulinzi mijini.

Click to expand...

Mdondoaji naona leo umehamasika kweli kumtetea mkuu wa kaya..!
Mkuu kuhusu hili la kilimo wala siwashiki makosa hawa vijana...! yaani mimi nilime kwa taabu na jembe la mkono halafu mazao yenyewe niyauze kwa bei kama bure! Mkuu hii kitu cha kilimo hata ukijiituma vipi kama serikali haijaamua kutoa mchango wake mkubwa ni kazi bure. Hivi kwani wewe hujui huko mikoani kuna matunda/mazao mengi tu yanaoza kwa kushindwa kusafirishwa kwa walaji mikoa mingine kwa sababu ya miundombinu mibovu? hatujaenda kwenye ufisadi wa ruzuku za mbolea na mauchafu mengine mengi.
Mkuu hii nchi tumepewa kila kitu kutoa uongozi bora tu. Yaani serikali ingekomaa na kilimo cha kisasa kabisa(Irrigation, kutumia vifaa vya kisasa vya klimo, mbegu bora, ruzuku ya mbolea n.k) tungekuwa mbali kabisa hata hawa machinga wangepungua mijini!
Tunacho chuo cha kilimo SUA(Sokoine University of Agriculture) lakini bado serikali inakodisha ardhi zetu kwa wageni as if hatuna wataalam wa kuendeleza kilimo chetu wenyewe cha kisasa na chenye tija! Usisikilize kabisa porojo za kilimo kwanza...hivyo ni vitu vya kuwekwa makabatini tu!

Mdondoaji said:

Leo nimezitazama data sehemu kutoka IMF na kuona Tanzania GDP per capital income imepanda kutoka 385 in 1980 to $1,400 per person.

[TABLE="class: tblrank"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1980
[/TD]
[TD]386.55
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1981
[/TD]
[TD]414.732
[/TD]
[TD]7.29 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1982
[/TD]
[TD]426.696
[/TD]
[TD]2.88 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1983
[/TD]
[TD]426.078
[/TD]
[TD]-0.14 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1984
[/TD]
[TD]430.428
[/TD]
[TD]1.02 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1985
[/TD]
[TD]446.878
[/TD]
[TD]3.82 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1986
[/TD]
[TD]466.753
[/TD]
[TD]4.45 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1987
[/TD]
[TD]493.534
[/TD]
[TD]5.74 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1988
[/TD]
[TD]523.028
[/TD]
[TD]5.98 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1989
[/TD]
[TD]545.079
[/TD]
[TD]4.22 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1990
[/TD]
[TD]590.038
[/TD]
[TD]8.25 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1991
[/TD]
[TD]604.439
[/TD]
[TD]2.44 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1992
[/TD]
[TD]603.421
[/TD]
[TD]-0.17 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1993
[/TD]
[TD]605.429
[/TD]
[TD]0.33 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1994
[/TD]
[TD]609.349
[/TD]
[TD]0.65 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995
[/TD]
[TD]625.718
[/TD]
[TD]2.69 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1996
[/TD]
[TD]648.205
[/TD]
[TD]3.59 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1997
[/TD]
[TD]664.841
[/TD]
[TD]2.57 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1998
[/TD]
[TD]678.292
[/TD]
[TD]2.02 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1999
[/TD]
[TD]705.837
[/TD]
[TD]4.06 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2000
[/TD]
[TD]731.92
[/TD]
[TD]3.70 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2001
[/TD]
[TD]772.655
[/TD]
[TD]5.57 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2002
[/TD]
[TD]824.678
[/TD]
[TD]6.73 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2003
[/TD]
[TD]882.455
[/TD]
[TD]7.01 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2004
[/TD]
[TD]942.2
[/TD]
[TD]6.77 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005
[/TD]
[TD]1008.924
[/TD]
[TD]7.08 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2006
[/TD]
[TD]1094.444
[/TD]
[TD]8.48 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2007
[/TD]
[TD]1180.847
[/TD]
[TD]7.89 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2008
[/TD]
[TD]1269.725
[/TD]
[TD]7.53 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2009
[/TD]
[TD]1342.299
[/TD]
[TD]5.72 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2010
[/TD]
[TD]1416.863
[/TD]
[TD]5.55 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




Pia graph hii inaonyesha kwa urahisi zaidi click link hii hapa:-
Tanzania GDP - per capita (PPP) - Economy

Nakupongeza Rais wetu JK kwani ukuaji wa GDP umekuwa mkubwa kuanzia 2005- kuendelea despite turbulent economic pressure from the West in 2008-2010. Ila kuna mambo yanahitajika kuendelezwa mfano distribution of this wealth needs to reach mwananchi wa kawaida wa nchi yetu naye aone kuna mabadiliko.

Tanzania imetoka nafasi ya chini kuwa nchi ya tatu kwa umaskini duniani kuwa nchi ya 51 kwa umaskini duniani and still climbing. We are 24th poorest nation 2 step behind Kenya and projected that by 2014 we shall surpass Kenya to be wealthiest nation in East Africa. Tunahitaji pia mabadiliko katika sarafu ya nchi iendane na ukuaji huu wa uchumi wa Tanzania. Kudos JK kwa kazi nzuri steam on!

Click to expand...

Umenisaidia sana mkuu ninaandika economic perfomance reports hapa hii thread ni useful sana..

Kingine ambacho JK amefanikiwa sana ni kusaidia mikoa iliyo "pembezoni"

Kuna data zifuatazo ninazitafuta kwa mwenye nayo!
1. Urefu wa barabara za lami zilizojengwa kutoka 2005 -2015
2. Idadi ya shule za secondari na idadi ya wanafunzi wanaosoma
3. Idadi ya walimu walioajiriwa na ongezeko la mishahara kwa kipindi hicho..

The figure are just amazing..JK amewapita sana watangulizi wake of course ana matatizo yake..lakini kiuchumi (indicator zinazokubalika) bado ni bravo..

Msiandike Upumbavu tena humu nyie.KIKWETE NI KIAZI.

The question is with all the resources we have is $1400 really something to be proud of?

There are countries with meager resources that have a much greater GDP because they have utilized what they have properly. We have been blessed with unimaginable wealth yet most of our people live in poverty.

It's like giving a 21 year old university graduate in Mathematics a 6 year olds elementary school math test and praising him when he gets 51%.

Propaganda zingine bana! Pambaf kabisa. Eti JK kafanya vizuri kwenye kupunguza umasikini. Are you serious?

sweke34 said:

Mdondoaji naona leo umehamasika kweli kumtetea mkuu wa kaya..!
Mkuu kuhusu hili la kilimo wala siwashiki makosa hawa vijana...! yaani mimi nilime kwa taabu na jembe la mkono halafu mazao yenyewe niyauze kwa bei kama bure! Mkuu hii kitu cha kilimo hata ukijiituma vipi kama serikali haijaamua kutoa mchango wake mkubwa ni kazi bure. Hivi kwani wewe hujui huko mikoani kuna matunda/mazao mengi tu yanaoza kwa kushindwa kusafirishwa kwa walaji mikoa mingine kwa sababu ya miundombinu mibovu? hatujaenda kwenye ufisadi wa ruzuku za mbolea na mauchafu mengine mengi.
Mkuu hii nchi tumepewa kila kitu kutoa uongozi bora tu. Yaani serikali ingekomaa na kilimo cha kisasa kabisa(Irrigation, kutumia vifaa vya kisasa vya klimo, mbegu bora, ruzuku ya mbolea n.k) tungekuwa mbali kabisa hata hawa machinga wangepungua mijini!
Tunacho chuo cha kilimo SUA(Sokoine University of Agriculture) lakini bado serikali inakodisha ardhi zetu kwa wageni as if hatuna wataalam wa kuendeleza kilimo chetu wenyewe cha kisasa na chenye tija! Usisikilize kabisa porojo za kilimo kwanza...hivyo ni vitu vya kuwekwa makabatini tu!

Click to expand...

Mkuu,

Leo wacha wengine wanione mie magamba but ukweli ni kwamba I am liberalist sifungamani na upande wowote. Penye sifa tumsifu kikwete penye udhaifu tukosoe ndio sifa ya kuwa msomi vyenginevyo mambo yataenda ndivyo sivyo.
Unajua Kilimo kwanza kinaweza kumsaidia vijana kwa vipi mfano Serikali imetoa mikopo ya gharama nafuu vya wakulima. Exim, Stanbic kuna mikopo ya wakulima wadogo wadogo inagharimu 8% annually (ukilinganisha na 20% of normal commercial bank loans). Vijana kama kumi hivi nawafahamu waliamua kuondoka mijini na kurudi vijijini moja alikwenda kwao Kilimanjaro kuanzisha kilimo cha matunda, mwengine (kama sikosei vijana wanne au watano )alilima kilimo cha karafuu, watatu walienda kufanya maandalizi ya kilimo cha mpunga, mmoja sijamfuatilia sana ila alienda kuanzisha kilimo cha miti ya fito. My god vijana hao wamefanikiwa hasa wa kilimo cha karafuu. Hivyo kilimo kwanza does help kama wakipata mwongozo mzuri. Moja karibuni ameomba mkopo stanbic wa milioni 30 anataka kuongeza ufanisi wa mkopo wake nadhani atafanikiwa. Vijana wetu wanahitaji kupewa moyo na kuhamasishwa.

Kilimo cha kisasa kina faida ila bila ya technical know how ni kazi bure. Graduates wa vyuo vikuu Tanzania hawazidi 10% of the total population of vijana unategemea kilimo cha kisasa kitawasaidia?

Topical said:

Umenisaidia sana mkuu ninaandika economic perfomance reports hapa hii thread ni useful sana..

Kingine ambacho JK amefanikiwa sana ni kusaidia mikoa iliyo "pembezoni"

Kuna data zifuatazo ninazitafuta kwa mwenye nayo!
1. Urefu wa barabara za lami zilizojengwa kutoka 2005 -2015
2. Idadi ya shule za secondari na idadi ya wanafunzi wanaosoma
3. Idadi ya walimu walioajiriwa na ongezeko la mishahara kwa kipindi hicho..

The figure are just amazing..JK amewapita sana watangulizi wake of course ana matatizo yake..lakini kiuchumi (indicator zinazokubalika) bado ni bravo..

Click to expand...

Tuko pamoja mkuu,

Hebu nipatie link hiyo nijifunze zaidi kwani zitanisaidia kufahamu. He is doing well ila unajua tena sie wanaadamu saa zengine hatuna shukrani. Kuna figures hizi nimezipata IMF kupitia Wikipedia hebu angalia projection of Tanzania GDP.

List of countries by future GDP (PPP) per capita estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mdondoaji,
This is what the government in Tanzania and some countries in Africa are good at....cooking data! Those data have got no value if people on ground suffer and live a miserely life.
Kuna sehemu hatutaweza kuhonga wala kudanganya ili mambo yetu yaende na unafiki utatuumbua wale tulioukumbatia kama ndio njia yetu ya kutapa maisha bora kwa kila mtanzania. Kuna kila dalili siku za kuwa accountable sio nyingi na haziko mbali sana. Naamini historia inayarekodi yote yanayoendelea na itakuwa inatupa kumbukumbu kadri tunavyosonga mbele.Aibu yao!!!

Mdondoaji said:

Leo nimezitazama data sehemu kutoka IMF na kuona Tanzania GDP per capital income imepanda kutoka 385 in 1980 to $1,400 per person.

[TABLE="class: tblrank"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1980
[/TD]
[TD]386.55
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1981
[/TD]
[TD]414.732
[/TD]
[TD]7.29 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1982
[/TD]
[TD]426.696
[/TD]
[TD]2.88 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1983
[/TD]
[TD]426.078
[/TD]
[TD]-0.14 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1984
[/TD]
[TD]430.428
[/TD]
[TD]1.02 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1985
[/TD]
[TD]446.878
[/TD]
[TD]3.82 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1986
[/TD]
[TD]466.753
[/TD]
[TD]4.45 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1987
[/TD]
[TD]493.534
[/TD]
[TD]5.74 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1988
[/TD]
[TD]523.028
[/TD]
[TD]5.98 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1989
[/TD]
[TD]545.079
[/TD]
[TD]4.22 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1990
[/TD]
[TD]590.038
[/TD]
[TD]8.25 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1991
[/TD]
[TD]604.439
[/TD]
[TD]2.44 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1992
[/TD]
[TD]603.421
[/TD]
[TD]-0.17 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1993
[/TD]
[TD]605.429
[/TD]
[TD]0.33 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1994
[/TD]
[TD]609.349
[/TD]
[TD]0.65 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995
[/TD]
[TD]625.718
[/TD]
[TD]2.69 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1996
[/TD]
[TD]648.205
[/TD]
[TD]3.59 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1997
[/TD]
[TD]664.841
[/TD]
[TD]2.57 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1998
[/TD]
[TD]678.292
[/TD]
[TD]2.02 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1999
[/TD]
[TD]705.837
[/TD]
[TD]4.06 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2000
[/TD]
[TD]731.92
[/TD]
[TD]3.70 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2001
[/TD]
[TD]772.655
[/TD]
[TD]5.57 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2002
[/TD]
[TD]824.678
[/TD]
[TD]6.73 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2003
[/TD]
[TD]882.455
[/TD]
[TD]7.01 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2004
[/TD]
[TD]942.2
[/TD]
[TD]6.77 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005
[/TD]
[TD]1008.924
[/TD]
[TD]7.08 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2006
[/TD]
[TD]1094.444
[/TD]
[TD]8.48 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2007
[/TD]
[TD]1180.847
[/TD]
[TD]7.89 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2008
[/TD]
[TD]1269.725
[/TD]
[TD]7.53 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2009
[/TD]
[TD]1342.299
[/TD]
[TD]5.72 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2010
[/TD]
[TD]1416.863
[/TD]
[TD]5.55 %
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




Pia graph hii inaonyesha kwa urahisi zaidi click link hii hapa:-
Tanzania GDP - per capita (PPP) - Economy

Nakupongeza Rais wetu JK kwani ukuaji wa GDP umekuwa mkubwa kuanzia 2005- kuendelea despite turbulent economic pressure from the West in 2008-2010. Ila kuna mambo yanahitajika kuendelezwa mfano distribution of this wealth needs to reach mwananchi wa kawaida wa nchi yetu naye aone kuna mabadiliko.

Tanzania imetoka nafasi ya chini kuwa nchi ya tatu kwa umaskini duniani kuwa nchi ya 51 kwa umaskini duniani and still climbing. We are 24th poorest nation 2 step behind Kenya and projected that by 2014 we shall surpass Kenya to be wealthiest nation in East Africa. Tunahitaji pia mabadiliko katika sarafu ya nchi iendane na ukuaji huu wa uchumi wa Tanzania. Kudos JK kwa kazi nzuri steam on!

Click to expand...

Haya yote ni sawa na mahesabu ya MEGAWATI wakati kuna mgao