Clarke Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I think I'm a centrist because I don't like the liberal views of Cheney/Rand.
Laaloo Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Full Jaahil Mein Jaahil Mera baap jaahil meri maa jaahil mera poora parivar jaahil
SLICKR392 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Monarchy and Dictatorship. We are basically living under a Monarchy rule now.
velu Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 dictatorship .. we need someone like amma :bandit:
Muloghonto Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I am talking implementable things today and here' date= in India my friend. Consider following things - India is 4-times USA -Ratio of GDP(PPP) per capita for USA and India is arnd 12:1 -Comparable country like china had labor-camp till very recently -India's lack of swift judicial pronouncements -Unorganized labor force being unaware of their rights. What has this gotto do with not supporting policies that lead to wealth disparities ? Your position seems to assume that growth from poverty to luxury must go through the path of extraordinary wealth disparities first. Yet, this is not true. Western Europe after WWII is a good example of a society re-building from near zero and still managing to get rich without letting the gap between rich and poor grow too wide. 1. Whether you give food, petrol, gas etc subsidy or you hand out cash, its the same ethics-wise. 2. Cash handouts will prove to be much more efficient and beneficial. People would have the right to spend that cash in whichever way they prefer. You will also avoid the mismanagement and corruption in subsidy disbursal . I disagree. I've lived in two societies where welfarism takes both routes: In Canada, its subsidies after subsidies, in middle east, it was cash hand-outs to the citizens. Thing is, when there are subsidies, something that 'should cost' 10 bucks costs 5 bucks ( for eg). It still puts the onus on the individual to go earn that five bucks to spend on the said something. When you have cash handouts however, it simply removes any incentive for the individual to work for the said something, as the said something is now 'free' for the individual, owing to the fact that they got cash for free. I agree though that the biggest bane of subsidies is mismanagement of funds and corruption but IMO, it is still a better option towards promoting a healthy work ethic than simply handing out cash.
randomGuy Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 1. Policy-wise, yes, we should tax the rich more. But I do not read anything in wealth disparity if the bottom-most stratum of the society has decent living standards and not sub-standard lives. People have the right to sell an idea, create a company, work hard and create massive personal wealth. 2. I suggested Rs. 5k-10k annually. Lets take the mean i.e. Rs. 7,500. Now, in absence of all(or most) subsidies, this is a very modest amount, will probably cover for maybe food and a 100/- per month mobile connection. People have lots of aspirations like good house, clothes, education, vacations, health insurances etc and they WILL STILL work hard. 7,500/- will only be a minimalist survival amount which will give them some sort of security.
Muloghonto Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 1. Policy-wise, yes, we should tax the rich more. But I do not read anything in wealth disparity if the bottom-most stratum of the society has decent living standards and not sub-standard lives. People have the right to sell an idea, create a company, work hard and create massive personal wealth. And society has the right to limit how much wealth a said idea entitles you to. Wealth disparity is actually one of the biggest issues facing economic & social stability of a nation- this is why the US economy is in shambles, despite having similar growth rates as Scandinavian economies and sporting far more millionaires and billionaires than them. 2. I suggested Rs. 5k-10k annually. Lets take the mean i.e. Rs. 7,500. Now, in absence of all(or most) subsidies, this is a very modest amount, will probably cover for maybe food and a 100/- per month mobile connection. People have lots of aspirations like good house, clothes, education, vacations, health insurances etc and they WILL STILL work hard. 7,500/- will only be a minimalist survival amount which will give them some sort of security. It is more about the idea of subsidy vs handouts. As i said, in my experience, there seems to be better participation in the workforce when subsidies exist and handouts don't. As for removing subsidies alltogether, Indian economy will come to a grinding halt if we take off petrol subsidies and force world market-rates on the petrol-pump. Nobody but the Ambanis and the Gandhis would be owning cars if petrol cost 150 rupees a litre. The other big problem of handouts is that it creates more money in circulation, thus leading to a greater inflation- something that India must avoid at all costs.
randomGuy Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 1.Poverty in South asia and Africa is worse than poverty in USA, not just poverty percentage but the nature of poverty. Scandinavian economies are very small in comparison to USA and hence what is valid for them is not valid for USA. I do not mind the warren buffets and bill gates. 2. Like I said, I am a firm believer in significant welfare-ism for a country like India. Many noted Indian economists have said that un-conditional cash disbursal would actually be more beneficial for indians than current subsidies and mnrega-like schemes.
Muloghonto Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 1.Poverty in South asia and Africa is worse than poverty in USA' date=' not just poverty percentage but the [i']nature of poverty. Scandinavian economies are very small in comparison to USA and hence what is valid for them is not valid for USA. I do not mind the warren buffets and bill gates. Scale of economies may vary but principles underlining them dont always vary. If you wish to see comparative economic size as the US, then European Union is comparable since the 1980s. As a whole, EU has had similar growth rates as US with the noticable difference of having much less income disparities and much less billionaires. Yet, their economy has been far more robust than the American one. Also, nature of poverty does not matter, since poverty is a relative concept. 100 year ago, the 'poor man' in India was far poorer than the poor man today. Just because you can rent a house and lease a car in the US doesnt mean the average American isnt as 'stressed' about their level of poverty as the guy who lives in a mud house and tin roof in Indian slums. 2. Like I said, I am a firm believer in significant welfare-ism for a country like India. Many noted Indian economists have said that un-conditional cash disbursal would actually be more beneficial for indians than current subsidies and mnrega-like schemes. Those economists speak from the assumption that corruption within the subsidy system outweighs the far harder to measure/predict inflation issues with more currency circulating and lower workforce participation by handout receivers. Something i dont agree on.
Detonator Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 We are basically living under a Monarchy rule now. Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty. :hatsoff:
randomGuy Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 1. There ARE levels of poverty my friend. For ex. This official measure places about 15 percent of the population, or 46 million Americans, in poverty. Of those classified in poverty, 70 percent report they suffer no material hardships and can meet all their essential needs for food, shelter, clothing and health care. When we subtract this 70 percent from the 46 million and further subtract the 6 million illegal aliens included, the actual number of Americans experiencing material poverty is about 8 million, or between 2 percent and 3 percent. This is largely the same cohort as the 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans with very low mental acuity, i.e. those who struggle to fill out a simple form. There are very few Americans in poverty other than those with severe cognitive challenges. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/11/poverty-in-america-myth-and-reality-61011 USA also has 132 out of fortune 500 companies producing great innovations and up-ing the living standards all across the world. One must not curb that. 2. yaar 7500/- annually is a very modest amount. if i am not wrong, SBI opens bank a/c for every adhaar no. , so debit cards can be issued n topped-up by 7500/- for the people for prefer that method and they can withdraw later from ATMs. One can also do part payments, say max of 2500/- in a month. So, Dont think abt inflation, shrinking of labor force or too much currency circulation. Like I said, people will still work hard.
Recommended Posts