Comments for Arcade of Thoughts http://www.coolshankin.com/blog A cocktail of views, reviews and a few things more Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:52:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 Comment on On Swaminomic’s Post on Inequality by Coolshankin http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/09/12/on-swaminomics-post-on-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-936 Coolshankin Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:52:40 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=250#comment-936 <a href="#comment-935" rel="nofollow">@Rahul </a> I do not oppose liberlisation. I think there should be more of that in India. I only said that inequality cannot be ignored. I disagree with SAA when he says that we need not concentrate on inequality. Gini coefficient has disadvantages that are well known. They are on wiki. @Rahul
I do not oppose liberlisation. I think there should be more of that in India. I only said that inequality cannot be ignored. I disagree with SAA when he says that we need not concentrate on inequality. Gini coefficient has disadvantages that are well known. They are on wiki.

]]> Comment on On Swaminomic’s Post on Inequality by Rahul http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/09/12/on-swaminomics-post-on-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-935 Rahul Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:05:31 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=250#comment-935 SAA is talking about Gini as an inefficient indicator for measuring inequality because it omits certain things he considers important in an equal society. He differentiates GDP as an inefficient indicator for prosperity or well being. He is not saying that the states with high Gini are actually very equal nor that poverty is a small problem nor that farmer suicides itself are not a problem. He is making a rather small point that Gini is an inefficient indicator of inequality and hence he hasn't had to make a very compelling argument to support it. Perhaps Swami Aiyar might readily agree to your points. I do not think he stands for the things you seek to oppose or opposes the points you have to make. Most conclusions in his article are very simplistic inferences which have many more aspects to it and hence may be wrong. His central point is a small one and is shown easily. As for your opposition to liberalisation and support to stronger labour laws and unions, I think it merits a dedicated post. Will try to read up on what you have posted in the last comment but hope you will share your learnings on the subject. SAA is talking about Gini as an inefficient indicator for measuring inequality because it omits certain things he considers important in an equal society. He differentiates GDP as an inefficient indicator for prosperity or well being. He is not saying that the states with high Gini are actually very equal nor that poverty is a small problem nor that farmer suicides itself are not a problem. He is making a rather small point that Gini is an inefficient indicator of inequality and hence he hasn’t had to make a very compelling argument to support it. Perhaps Swami Aiyar might readily agree to your points. I do not think he stands for the things you seek to oppose or opposes the points you have to make. Most conclusions in his article are very simplistic inferences which have many more aspects to it and hence may be wrong. His central point is a small one and is shown easily.
As for your opposition to liberalisation and support to stronger labour laws and unions, I think it merits a dedicated post. Will try to read up on what you have posted in the last comment but hope you will share your learnings on the subject.

]]> Comment on On Swaminomic’s Post on Inequality by Coolshankin http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/09/12/on-swaminomics-post-on-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-933 Coolshankin Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:40:37 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=250#comment-933 <a href="#comment-932" rel="nofollow">@Sha </a> My view is that you cannot exclusively deal with one of the other. Of course, entitlement programs have failed India before, but so has the economic liberalisation. It is just that it has not failed us, the middle class, i.e., less than 5% of the population. After 20 years, if only 5% of the population is well-off, we have to rethink our approach. 77% of India lives on less than Rs 20 a day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India ). I think that the middle class in India is out of touch with the rest. Also, we all know that the pre-90s effort to eradcate poverty was just a charade. Even this liberalisation was carried out only after it was thurt upon us. To this day, it is half hearted. We need more of liberalisation to develop the nation, and we also need some entitelment programs to provide relief until the the situation improves. Here's my view of NREGA and inflation: I have a number of article by economists that NREGA has led to the inflation in India in last few year. I believe them. Let's review what NREGA does. It provides Rs 120 for 100 days in a year. That Rs 12000 per person per year for back-breaking labour. Thats Rs 33/person/day. Given an average family of husband of wife with two children, it is still Rs 33/person/day (before corruption take a part of this share away). By what measure is that a generous entitlement? When the labourers refuse to work in farms for a lower rate, prices rise (in the cities and in the villages), and the middle class cries fowl. It is as if the labourers are expected to work for the lower rates (less than minimum wage) that landlords used to offer them so that the 5% middle class can reap all the benefits. It is just that that the exploitation of the helpless poor has stopped. Also, nobody can do the back-breaking labour of digging roads beyond 40. Their life expectency is very less too. I remember people crying fowl when George Bush said that the food prices have risen because of demand in the developing countries who are eating more now. It is the exact same thing here. I dont care where the facts come from. From a mutt or an economist, facts remain facts. And farmer suicides are very real. The middle-class media in India does not talk about them because the lower class, who are affected by it, does not own TVs to watch them. And thos who do raise their voice about it (Arundhati Roy, for instance, though I dont care much about her for other reasons), are immedietly branded as anti-development. Inequality is very real, and there are many ways to deal with them other then entitlements. Stonger labour laws and unions, for instance, can change things. Read http://www.guernicamag.com/features/3027/on_change_in_india_siddhartha_deb_9_1_11/ when you find the time. It gives a good reason why we need stong labour laws and unions. Of course, unions should not become too powerful as in the socialist coutries, but their complete absense also makes a disaster. @Sha
My view is that you cannot exclusively deal with one of the other. Of course, entitlement programs have failed India before, but so has the economic liberalisation. It is just that it has not failed us, the middle class, i.e., less than 5% of the population. After 20 years, if only 5% of the population is well-off, we have to rethink our approach. 77% of India lives on less than Rs 20 a day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India ). I think that the middle class in India is out of touch with the rest.

Also, we all know that the pre-90s effort to eradcate poverty was just a charade. Even this liberalisation was carried out only after it was thurt upon us. To this day, it is half hearted. We need more of liberalisation to develop the nation, and we also need some entitelment programs to provide relief until the the situation improves.

Here’s my view of NREGA and inflation: I have a number of article by economists that NREGA has led to the inflation in India in last few year. I believe them. Let’s review what NREGA does. It provides Rs 120 for 100 days in a year. That Rs 12000 per person per year for back-breaking labour. Thats Rs 33/person/day. Given an average family of husband of wife with two children, it is still Rs 33/person/day (before corruption take a part of this share away). By what measure is that a generous entitlement? When the labourers refuse to work in farms for a lower rate, prices rise (in the cities and in the villages), and the middle class cries fowl. It is as if the labourers are expected to work for the lower rates (less than minimum wage) that landlords used to offer them so that the 5% middle class can reap all the benefits. It is just that that the exploitation of the helpless poor has stopped. Also, nobody can do the back-breaking labour of digging roads beyond 40. Their life expectency is very less too. I remember people crying fowl when George Bush said that the food prices have risen because of demand in the developing countries who are eating more now. It is the exact same thing here.

I dont care where the facts come from. From a mutt or an economist, facts remain facts. And farmer suicides are very real. The middle-class media in India does not talk about them because the lower class, who are affected by it, does not own TVs to watch them. And thos who do raise their voice about it (Arundhati Roy, for instance, though I dont care much about her for other reasons), are immedietly branded as anti-development. Inequality is very real, and there are many ways to deal with them other then entitlements. Stonger labour laws and unions, for instance, can change things. Read http://www.guernicamag.com/features/3027/on_change_in_india_siddhartha_deb_9_1_11/ when you find the time. It gives a good reason why we need stong labour laws and unions. Of course, unions should not become too powerful as in the socialist coutries, but their complete absense also makes a disaster.

]]> Comment on On Swaminomic’s Post on Inequality by Sha http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/09/12/on-swaminomics-post-on-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-932 Sha Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:00:17 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=250#comment-932 Entitlement programs have their own downsides. NREGA is one such. It is the Central government's scheme to address directly the problem of income inequality. Opponents have correctly argued that NREGA has led to inflation in rural areas. We had a 'income equality' socialist agenda for so long, and we saw how spectacularly it failed. The argument is not for a trickle down system. While the trickle-down theory may be wrong for the US, one cannot say the same about India. The problems in the two countries are entirely different, as are the merits of different solutions. You are confusing the American GOP arguments with what Swaminomics, Modi, etc. are trying to say. In the US, it is already extremely easy to do business- something that has led it to its predominant position in the world economy. In India it is still very hard to do business. What TN, Gujarat, etc. are doing is encouraging investment. This is as far from 'trickle-down' as possible. India has a long way to go before there is a necessity to discuss 'trickle-down' The situations in India and the US are very different. Take any argument- education, economy, healthcare, etc. This analogy holds- India is like an emaciated malnourished man who's just recovering from near-death. The US is like a fit, well-fed guy who's just sprained an ankle. The debate in the US is aimed at curing the sprained ankle, while in India's case, it is still about getting the sick guy to sit up. Massive entitlement spending is what got us to the pitiable condition of the late 1980s. I am skeptical about the farmer suicide spiel. I even heard some nutter say that pesticides should be banned because farmers use them to commit suicide. That presentation you linked to- it is by a religious mutt for the flying spaghetti monster's sake. They have decided to do some charity for farmers, making it impossible for the presentation to be objective. They are only justifying their charity. Well, even assuming the facts in that presentation are correct, how will entitlement or a thrust towards income equality help? Entitlement programs have their own downsides. NREGA is one such. It is the Central government’s scheme to address directly the problem of income inequality. Opponents have correctly argued that NREGA has led to inflation in rural areas. We had a ‘income equality’ socialist agenda for so long, and we saw how spectacularly it failed. The argument is not for a trickle down system. While the trickle-down theory may be wrong for the US, one cannot say the same about India. The problems in the two countries are entirely different, as are the merits of different solutions. You are confusing the American GOP arguments with what Swaminomics, Modi, etc. are trying to say. In the US, it is already extremely easy to do business- something that has led it to its predominant position in the world economy. In India it is still very hard to do business. What TN, Gujarat, etc. are doing is encouraging investment. This is as far from ‘trickle-down’ as possible. India has a long way to go before there is a necessity to discuss ‘trickle-down’

The situations in India and the US are very different. Take any argument- education, economy, healthcare, etc. This analogy holds- India is like an emaciated malnourished man who’s just recovering from near-death. The US is like a fit, well-fed guy who’s just sprained an ankle. The debate in the US is aimed at curing the sprained ankle, while in India’s case, it is still about getting the sick guy to sit up. Massive entitlement spending is what got us to the pitiable condition of the late 1980s.

I am skeptical about the farmer suicide spiel. I even heard some nutter say that pesticides should be banned because farmers use them to commit suicide. That presentation you linked to- it is by a religious mutt for the flying spaghetti monster’s sake. They have decided to do some charity for farmers, making it impossible for the presentation to be objective. They are only justifying their charity. Well, even assuming the facts in that presentation are correct, how will entitlement or a thrust towards income equality help?

]]> Comment on On Swaminomic’s Post on Inequality by Coolshankin http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/09/12/on-swaminomics-post-on-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-930 Coolshankin Tue, 13 Sep 2011 05:35:26 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=250#comment-930 <a href="#comment-929" rel="nofollow">@Rahul </a> I am not sure how you analysed his argument, but I felt his main point was that the Gini coefficient was a meaningless indicator. I thought that was not true and presented examples to show that. And, yeah, I agree that his comparisons are not fair for the reasons you have stated. @Rahul
I am not sure how you analysed his argument, but I felt his main point was that the Gini coefficient was a meaningless indicator. I thought that was not true and presented examples to show that. And, yeah, I agree that his comparisons are not fair for the reasons you have stated.

]]> Comment on On Swaminomic’s Post on Inequality by Rahul http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/09/12/on-swaminomics-post-on-inequality/comment-page-1/#comment-929 Rahul Tue, 13 Sep 2011 04:41:19 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=250#comment-929 I do not think he was using GDP or overall growth to argue against Gini as an indicator. He is arguing for equality in opportunity, and what I reterm as an ability to reverse inequalities based on ability. He looks at elections as indicators to whether majority were happy with the policies or not. He shows places that are more unequal but they may be prosperous. And he shows places that have been equal but lands of either lacking opportunities or lands of unequal opportunities, hence very unequal. He speaks in favour of migration which has been the opportunity for these lands in other areas again judging peoples mood being in favour of it using election results. Here I feel he is mistaken. I do not think he is favouring a trickle down theory. He feels availability and equality of opportunity are important indicators of equality which Gini seeks to measure. Gini is a measure of inequality in outcome which he says is bound to be there because of differing abilities. He favours a measure of equality in opportunity. As for farmer suicides, I think that presentation itself does a lot of justice to the subject. The failed experiments with GM crops, unfair competition with US and UK which subsidise farming, inadequate loans (an inequality in opportunity), and high interest money lenders. The worst affected is the cotton belt and that has very little to do with state policies. Mostly much to do with miserable failure of agri policies which were thought to be successful and failure to implement agricultural and financial sector reforms before opening markets and affecting prices downward. I feel the two subjects are not related because he is looking at performances of state governments and policies by looking at state wise data of GDP and Gini coeff and the farmer suicides are because of other factors for which it appears that largely the central government is responsible. I do not think he was using GDP or overall growth to argue against Gini as an indicator. He is arguing for equality in opportunity, and what I reterm as an ability to reverse inequalities based on ability. He looks at elections as indicators to whether majority were happy with the policies or not. He shows places that are more unequal but they may be prosperous. And he shows places that have been equal but lands of either lacking opportunities or lands of unequal opportunities, hence very unequal. He speaks in favour of migration which has been the opportunity for these lands in other areas again judging peoples mood being in favour of it using election results. Here I feel he is mistaken. I do not think he is favouring a trickle down theory. He feels availability and equality of opportunity are important indicators of equality which Gini seeks to measure. Gini is a measure of inequality in outcome which he says is bound to be there because of differing abilities. He favours a measure of equality in opportunity.
As for farmer suicides, I think that presentation itself does a lot of justice to the subject. The failed experiments with GM crops, unfair competition with US and UK which subsidise farming, inadequate loans (an inequality in opportunity), and high interest money lenders. The worst affected is the cotton belt and that has very little to do with state policies. Mostly much to do with miserable failure of agri policies which were thought to be successful and failure to implement agricultural and financial sector reforms before opening markets and affecting prices downward.
I feel the two subjects are not related because he is looking at performances of state governments and policies by looking at state wise data of GDP and Gini coeff and the farmer suicides are because of other factors for which it appears that largely the central government is responsible.

]]> Comment on Casting Aspersions by Coolshankin http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/05/05/casting-aspersions/comment-page-1/#comment-913 Coolshankin Sun, 08 May 2011 00:37:23 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=220#comment-913 <a href="#comment-912" rel="nofollow">@Aravind </a> (also <a href="#comment-910" rel="nofollow">@Manohar Seetharam </a> and <a href="#comment-903" rel="nofollow">@Mahesh </a>): That's exactly what I am saying. Calling American, Pakistani or Indians as hypocrites, terrorists or traitors is as much of a stereotype as calling muslims as terrorists. Just because the governments are democratically elected doesn't mean they really follow people's wishes. I am not shying away from the process. I think the misunderstanding arose because I was talking about individuals while you were talking about the whole group of people. @Aravind (also @Manohar Seetharam and @Mahesh ):
That’s exactly what I am saying. Calling American, Pakistani or Indians as hypocrites, terrorists or traitors is as much of a stereotype as calling muslims as terrorists. Just because the governments are democratically elected doesn’t mean they really follow people’s wishes.

I am not shying away from the process. I think the misunderstanding arose because I was talking about individuals while you were talking about the whole group of people.

]]> Comment on Casting Aspersions by Aravind http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/05/05/casting-aspersions/comment-page-1/#comment-912 Aravind Sun, 08 May 2011 00:12:46 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=220#comment-912 Obviously, we cannot blame every person of any country for anything done. But, we can blame the collection of the people together. Americans are obviously to be blamed, despite having many examples of those who dissent its policies from within. The same holds for Israelis, and Indians if we manage to botch up Kashmir further. Obviously, we cannot blame every person of any country for anything done. But, we can blame the collection of the people together. Americans are obviously to be blamed, despite having many examples of those who dissent its policies from within. The same holds for Israelis, and Indians if we manage to botch up Kashmir further.

]]> Comment on Casting Aspersions by Coolshankin http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/05/05/casting-aspersions/comment-page-1/#comment-911 Coolshankin Sat, 07 May 2011 06:15:46 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=220#comment-911 <a href="#comment-910" rel="nofollow">@Manohar Seetharam </a> 1. You are confusing a couple of things: Facing the good/bad consequences and taking the credit/blame. I face the both good and bad consequences of the system. Good consequences include my education and bad consequences include the bribes I had to pay to get my passport and DL. But I do not take credit either. I think DRDO, ISRO and related ministries did a great job and they deserve the credit for that they did and not me. I dont take credit for RTI. Similarly, I am not responsible for decisions of the govt I do not support. I hope you understand the distinction. There is no hypocrisy here. 2. You have an ideal view of the democracy. My point in the post is that democracy today is far from ideal. Lobbyists and citizens are not on a level field. To claim otherwise is naive. 3. Logical end for your argument is that you should also go to jail for our crimes in Kashmir and North East. Lets not get into logical ends of either of our argument. Your views have no hypocrisy. That's why I respect it. My views aren't hypocritical either. Lets agree that we disagree. @Manohar Seetharam

1. You are confusing a couple of things: Facing the good/bad consequences and taking the credit/blame. I face the both good and bad consequences of the system. Good consequences include my education and bad consequences include the bribes I had to pay to get my passport and DL. But I do not take credit either. I think DRDO, ISRO and related ministries did a great job and they deserve the credit for that they did and not me. I dont take credit for RTI. Similarly, I am not responsible for decisions of the govt I do not support. I hope you understand the distinction. There is no hypocrisy here.

2. You have an ideal view of the democracy. My point in the post is that democracy today is far from ideal. Lobbyists and citizens are not on a level field. To claim otherwise is naive.

3. Logical end for your argument is that you should also go to jail for our crimes in Kashmir and North East. Lets not get into logical ends of either of our argument.

Your views have no hypocrisy. That’s why I respect it. My views aren’t hypocritical either. Lets agree that we disagree.

]]> Comment on Casting Aspersions by Manohar Seetharam http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/2011/05/05/casting-aspersions/comment-page-1/#comment-910 Manohar Seetharam Sat, 07 May 2011 03:44:45 +0000 http://www.coolshankin.com/blog/?p=220#comment-910 Btw I am prepared to make distinctions between democracies and non-democracies. Also, within democracies depending on how much of citizen control and welfare measures have been a part of national politics. Eg: US and Sudan would be at opposite ends of the spectrum Btw I am prepared to make distinctions between democracies and non-democracies. Also, within democracies depending on how much of citizen control and welfare measures have been a part of national politics. Eg: US and Sudan would be at opposite ends of the spectrum

]]>