gorah_pindu Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 This book, by highly regarded economist Shankar Acharya, claims to examine and answer the following highly interesting questions:Can India grow without Bharat? Can we reap the "demographic dividend" of a young population? How should we revive industrial employment? Is the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act affordable? Why have reforms sputtered despite the "dream team"? How is growth so strong though reforms have stalled? How can populism be restrained? Can 8 per cent growth be sustained? Should we deploy forex reserves to build infrastructure? What must we do to renew our decaying cities? What is the solution to the coming water crisis? Who are India's tax reformers? Can bilateral trade agreements substitute for the Doha Round? Should SAARC have a common currency? Is "fiscal responsibility" working? Does monetary policy work? Can we really aspire to China's economic league - or is it all hype? How good is our foreign policy?"The eminent economist Shankar Acharya provides forthright and provocative answers to these key issues about India's development."For those of you who follow development, im sure some of the questions above have grabbed your interest - I am dying to know how effective the Rural Employment Scheme has been - whether the demographic dividend is still exploitable given failure in education and international connectivity - how populism can be restrained - what to do about the water crisis - how to revive metropolitan areas - what should be done with forex reserves - whether SAARC should have a common currency - et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 this sounds like a really good read... i m gonna look in the library for it. i did read robert heinlen's starship troopers and had a long drawn out response to a thread you started in response to that, but it seems that due to some malfunction my post was never recorded. anyways... did you read this book yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 The rural development scheme like all public sector spending will not yield noticable results, but it has the principle in place... i.e. greater government spending on public works rather than defence or tax breaks. its a step in the right direction if not a successful endevor. a bit like our own new deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 The rural development scheme like all public sector spending will not yield noticable results' date=' but it has the principle in place... i.e. greater government spending on public works rather than defence or tax breaks. its a step in the right direction if not a successful endevor. a bit like our own new deal.[/quote'] I think you are bit mistaken here. I am pretty sure money that has to go into defence will go into defence. Defence spending is independent of any other welfare schmes are are implemented. The rural employment guarentee scheme is a good scheme , though a bit populist in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricketics Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 no i didn't read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Looking at the topics , does seem to cover an entire gamut of them ! does seem interesting ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 this sounds like a really good read... i m gonna look in the library for it. i did read robert heinlen's starship troopers and had a long drawn out response to a thread you started in response to that' date=' but it seems that due to some malfunction my post was never recorded. anyways... did you read this book yet?[/quote'] Not yet - but I am interested in reading it - I finally ordered 'Temptations of the West' meanwhile. I would have been interested in seeing that response to Heinlein's novel - many critics see the book as an advocacy of fascism - and im inclined to agree - while I enjoyed the book immensely, I would not want a society that operated in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 The rural development scheme like all public sector spending will not yield noticable results' date=' but it has the principle in place... i.e. greater government spending on public works rather than defence or tax breaks. its a step in the right direction if not a successful endevor. a bit like our own new deal.[/quote'] This was my initial reaction too - however, I was suprised to hear recently, that the scheme has been a relative sucess (according to a news report that I cant find) - so it would be interesting to see what Mr Acharya's opinion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I think you are bit mistaken here. I am pretty sure money that has to go into defence will go into defence. Defence spending is independent of any other welfare schmes are are implemented. The rural employment guarentee scheme is a good scheme ' date=' though a bit populist in nature.[/quote'] are you serious mate!!!??? the more you spend on defence, the more you sell your nation to big business. general dwight eisenhower, five star general, two time president, highly decorated, highly regarded, REPUBLICAN... criticised increases in defense funding and the subsequent creation of the military industrial complex that has today virtually taken over united states. foreign policy has been hijacked by organizations such as haliburton, exxon mobile, chevron etc. if you read american or european industry you will notice how colonialization was the product of unchecked privatization of the defense sector and unchecked capitalism. i understand why you insist on defense spending, you feel this chauvanistic desire to compete with china and pakistan and play a game of numbers. i.e. we have this many air planes to this many of yours. trust me there is not going to be another conflict between india and china. the real war is of economics now. and that requires greater spending in the public sector. build better roads, build water supply, build power plants, build schools, increase spending on colleges, reduce excise duties, relax taxation of the middle class, provide some securities for the farmers and motivate them to rise about their sub sustinence farming practicises to more profitable production... i.e. spend money like water if you must to reduce the economic divide. if you ever get a chance, research NSC 68, a declassified national security council report to president harry truman. and then observe its repacursions on american economy. furthermore, take up a book on John Maynard Keynes and read what he has to say about public policy, and then read his counterpart: Milton Friedman and notice what is common in both: smaller government, less money to the government, greater spending on public sector, reduced defense spending. two of the brightest economic minds of humanity, from the polar ends of economic theory agree on this issue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Not yet - but I am interested in reading it - I finally ordered 'Temptations of the West' meanwhile. I would have been interested in seeing that response to Heinlein's novel - many critics see the book as an advocacy of fascism - and im inclined to agree - while I enjoyed the book immensely, I would not want a society that operated in the same way. see now i felt it was the reverse. i felt that his entire novel was a criticism of misplaced chauvanism and the result of a dragonian approach to citizenship. i.e. you are not born with rights, you need to earn them. a commentary on the Roman empire and how you had to earn citizenship, usually through military service. eventually, the reason he has human beings emmerging on top, it is supposed to be a resignation to our doomed fate. by the end we were too determined to win that we refused to examine the reasons for war, our motivation and above all, need. that is exactly what happened in rome as well. it reached a point, where there was no long an examination of why rome was at war with the gauls, the huns and just about everyone. and eventually, the society crumbled. i dont think it is appropriate to use his text as a raison detre for a totalitarian or rather better put: heirarchical society where rights, benefits were awarded according to social status; but must infact be used a mirror which must be held against our current governments and examine if we are infact, walking that path. in that respect, you were correct in mentioning how the book is of unique significance to contemporary society where skin color and ethnicity are proving to be social divides that not only limit you economically (as the jim crow laws of the pre 60s south did), but also to limit you as a citizen. we are steadily approaching a point where a muslim in india must prove his loyalty or a muslim in united states must be vouched for, lest he be an exteremist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I think you are bit mistaken here. I am pretty sure money that has to go into defence will go into defence. Defence spending is independent of any other welfare schmes are are implemented. The rural employment guarentee scheme is a good scheme ' date=' though a bit populist in nature.[/quote'] I say it;s utterly prfigate schemeserves no purpose whatsoever. During socialist days many a scheme like this came without any results. Basic flaw with these schemes is emphasis on distributing money then identifying rural development project. Today 100 days job has to be insured no matter what kind of project are being targeted. Reason officials are showing non-existing work as work and drawing money. Even where real work is being done it's meaningless. For instance U come from flood prone area every year flodd washes away the road and then they again put a make-shift one in place.. projects like this has zero meaning if u consider the larger good about India. What actually ned to be done is take on some huge infrastructural projects like golden quadrilateral and 100 days employment gaurantee gets taken care of. u don't have to worry about that. in its present perfomr this scheme is no better than yester-years licence raj profligate projects replete with corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 are you serious mate!!!??? the more you spend on defence, the more you sell your nation to big business. general dwight eisenhower, five star general, two time president, highly decorated, highly regarded, REPUBLICAN... criticised increases in defense funding and the subsequent creation of the military industrial complex that has today virtually taken over united states. foreign policy has been hijacked by organizations such as haliburton, exxon mobile, chevron etc. if you read american or european industry you will notice how colonialization was the product of unchecked privatization of the defense sector and unchecked capitalism. i understand why you insist on defense spending, you feel this chauvanistic desire to compete with china and pakistan and play a game of numbers. i.e. we have this many air planes to this many of yours. trust me there is not going to be another conflict between india and china. the real war is of economics now. and that requires greater spending in the public sector. build better roads, build water supply, build power plants, build schools, increase spending on colleges, reduce excise duties, relax taxation of the middle class, provide some securities for the farmers and motivate them to rise about their sub sustinence farming practicises to more profitable production... i.e. spend money like water if you must to reduce the economic divide. if you ever get a chance, research NSC 68, a declassified national security council report to president harry truman. and then observe its repacursions on american economy. furthermore, take up a book on John Maynard Keynes and read what he has to say about public policy, and then read his counterpart: Milton Friedman and notice what is common in both: smaller government, less money to the government, greater spending on public sector, reduced defense spending. two of the brightest economic minds of humanity, from the polar ends of economic theory agree on this issue! So u think all those past wars happend in people's imagination.. You point of development first is well taken but defence spending safeguards existance and let us face it we have serious tangible threat. I think one will have to be alive first to worry about one's all-round well being. Same holds true for nation-entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 So u think all those past wars happend in people's imagination.. You point of development first is well taken but defence spending safeguards existance and let us face it we have serious tangible threat. I think one will have to be alive first to worry about one's all-round well being. Same holds true for nation-entity. exactly how much do you think japan spends on defence considering the tangible threat of north korea and china? how much does taiwan spend? trust me, military keynesianism is the road to a society where the government is a castrated organization whose policies and agendas are hijacked by businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 exactly how much do you think japan spends on defence considering the tangible threat of north korea and china? how much does taiwan spend? trust me, military keynesianism is the road to a society where the government is a castrated organization whose policies and agendas are hijacked by businesses. USA has base there and takes care of threats on japan........we don't have any saviour like that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 USA has base there and takes care of threats on japan........we don't have any saviour like that.. which would explain why the south koreans are electing a government that would remove american bases from korea, or that the japanese resent american military presence. and btw i would like to see the source for this information that the americans have a military base in japan. to the best of my knowledge they have presence in south korea and the philipines. not japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share Posted July 8, 2007 Their base is in Okinawa, I think. Its has courted controversy for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts