[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject



---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Having got used to the idea that you can intervene at will in people's
lives, rob one and 'bless' the other, based on some subjective
criterion, without in any way understanding how things actually work,
you can NEVER be persuaded against your 'crush' with "socialistic"
well-meaning but completely confused, intervention in each and every
thing. You are also unwilling to read about how an economy like US or
any of the developed world economies can be generated in decades in
India by simply getting rid of our 'poor' man bogey. citing anyone to
you is like hitting a wall on a road. No point arguing with you. You and
India are made for each other.

Only puzzle then: why do you stay on in USA and reap the benefit of good
policies with instant telephones, cheap power, good roads, cheap food,
and military supremacy, when rural India was MADE FOR YOU! Everything
you EVER wanted (as expressed repeatedly on IPI) is ALREADY there in
India!! Enjoy. Have fun!!

Never in the history of the world were the poor 'ripped off' more than
the poor are ripped off by socialistic policies in India. When our
socialistic thugs get support from confused 'well-wishers' like you,
they gloat with glee and joy, since they see the bribes continuing to
flow in, the "plenty" under which the children of tax, boiler, school,
police, etc. 'inspectors' can study abroad, settle abroad, and yet use
the same poor people when in India as cheap domestic 'slave' labor and
exploit them till the poor die of exhaustion.

Poverty never got eliminated by robbing the rich. You create wealth or
impoverish everyone. If that is too difficult to understand, forget it.
I am done.

COMPLETE ignorance - and distaste of the study of the process of -
wealth creation appears to be your hallmark, Charu. No longer will I
debate with you and your kind, blissfully sitting in USA and advocating
the strangulation of all economic enterprise in India, and supporting
(implicitly - since you will deny vehemently!) the massive corruption we
have created in the system. Attempting to cross the mental wall you have
set up against STUDYING and careful examination of human
incentives(instead of opening a basic economics textbook) is not within
my human capacity. I give up.

Let me teach, instead, Americans and foreigners, who have a greater
taste for knowledge than Indians, who prefer 'good-intentions' to hard
and rigorous study of the reality (studying is hard, passing judgments
is easy). In the last 1 year, did you open evan a single intermetiate
economics text book? Of course not!! That would violate your oath of
passing judgment on economic issues through your 'gut feeling'!
Economists and fools like us (stupid bureaucrats who have experienced
the corrupt system on a daily basis for a decade) can babble away about
the solutions. But you remain FIRM in your judgment, sitting in a
comfortable house in America, with a car that works, with a phone that
works, with power and a microwave oven, with cooking gas and an air
conditioner, on how the poor of India can be helped through the
government supply of all goods. Did YOUR goods at home get supplied by
the US government? How blind can you get?

Instead of proferring this fake and ignorant sympathy for the poor of
India, why not simply bring all the poor of India to your house in USA?
How about that for starters?

[that is my last 'debate' msg for some time to IPI. I had re-joined the
debates a few days ago, but I type too much, and CTS is v. painful. I'm
off the list again. See you guys later.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
> [mailto:owner-india_policy@cinenet.net]On Behalf Of Charu datt
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 5:44 PM
> To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject: Re: wisdom? Whose?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
> ___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Dr.S.Sabhlok" wrote:
>
> > > > Charu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In theory, because the private sector is driven by profit,
> >
> > THAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY MOTIVE - THAT AUTOMATICALLY LEADS TO OPTIMUM
> > SOCIAL WELFARE IN ALL EXCLUDABLE AND RIVAL GOODS (CF.
> ELEMENTARY ADAM
> SMITH)
>
> Proof by eminent citation?
> I don't find that particularly convincing.
>
> >
> >
> > and the
> > > > > conventional wisdom is that with the low densities phone
> > > subscribers  in rural
> > > > > areas, there is not much profit to be made in bringing telecom
> to
> > > rural areas, so private companies won't do it.
> >
> > VILLAGERS, WHO PAY NO INCOME TAX IN INDIA, AND SOME OF WHOM
> ARE QUITE
> > RICH, ARE USED TO PAYING HIGH BLACK PREMIA FOR 'GOVT. ORGANIZED
> SUPPIES'
> > LIKE K.OIL TO GOVT. VENDORS - A SYSTEM THAT - AMONG MANY
> SUCH SYSTEMS,
>
> > FUNDS THE ELECTORAL PROCESSES OF INDIA, THROUGH BRIBES UP
> THE LADDER.
>
> Interesting, but irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> >
> >
> > JUST LIKE WE ARE USED TO, AS CITIZENS, TO PAYING HIGH BLACK
> PREMIA FOR
>
> > GOVT. ORGANIZED TELECOM IN URBAN AREAS. SUCH 'WISDOM' AS YOU CITE IS
> > ULTIMATE FOLLY. WAKE UP!
>
> Perhaps you could explain the 'ultimate folly' of the following
> reasoning:
>
> Suppose a village has 50 potential phone subscribers.
> Since the cost of laying cable/fiber from the central office
> exchange to
> the
> village exchange will be divided among 50 customers as
> opposed to 50,000
>
> customers, in an [urban] area of higher population density,
> the initial
> cost a
> non-subsidized operation needs to charge subscribers is then
> 1000 times
> what
> an urban subscriber would be charged. This would cut the the pool of
> potential
> subscribers to 5 from 50, driving up the cost to 10,000 times an urban
> line,
> thereby reducing the potential traffic to the point that it is now
> unprofitable for a non-subsidized operation to provide phone service-
> and
> phone service thus never becomes widely available in rural areas.
>
> The same argument applies to electric supply, and governments
> worldwide
> do
> subsidize rural electrification- possibly because it is considered
> socially
> desireable to provide an incentive for some people to continue to live
> in
> rural areas and grow food for everyone else even though there
> is not an
> immediate and tangible 'profit' that any accounting course
> could help us
>
> calculate, though I suppose we could dispense with this
> 'ultimate folly'
> and
> allow food prices to rise to the point that people move out of the
> cities and
> back to the villages and we revert to being an agrarian
> society with no
> use
> for things like electricity, telephones, and technology in general.
>
> > COMPETITION WILL - AS IT ALWAYS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL - ENSURE LOWER
> PRICES,
>
> .............
>
> > ALL OTHER TALK IS MERE RUBBISH. FOR PUBLIC GOODS THE SITUATION IS
> DIFFERENT.
> > BUT TELECOM IS NOT A PUBLIC GOOD.
>
> I do not consider the argument of dismissing something as
> 'mere rubbish'
> any
> more convincing than 'proof by eminent citation'.
>
> -Charu
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.
> debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:
> http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------