Re: A study in facts

[Srikumar <Srikumar@simexmail.com.sg>]

Ash Mahesh wrote : 
>>that free enterprise, in recent decades, tends to
>>leave some sections of 
> >the population behind while others progress rapidly, and find government

>> moderation to be the answer to reducing this disparity. 
>> The answer probably lies somewhere in between. I
>>encourage that we try 

Arvind Wrote :
>I don't think the answer lies in between. Those who
>compare their wealth to others even when they have
>enough to lead comfortable lives are not justified
>in doing so.


I don't understand why we get into this debate of free market vs socialism
all the time. I would tend to agree with the observations of Sastry and Ash
that the answer does not lie in either extreme. By branding the ideas with
some 'isms' each one is forced to interpret it the way he sees that 'ism'.
I
think we should evaluate specific policy issues without trying to brand
them
as one ism or the other. Let us try to look at it as a specific idea and
see
if it fits the needs of India. 

"Equal Opportunity" is a nice ideal to aim for and is very fair. However,
you can never achieve this because you are born in some environment and you
have to make the best use of that which is given to you.  How do you know
how many 'Sachins', died in the slums of B'bay without even getting an
opportunity to hold a cricket bat? Are we right to say that they deserved
it
because they never tried or were unwilling to put in hard work?

We are not comparing those who have enough to lead a comfortable life, but
talking about the bottom 20% of the population, who need some extra
"opportunity" in order to exploit the "equal opportunity" that the free
market provides.

IMHO, too much disparity will invariably lead to social unrest,
irrespective
of the cause of the disparity. A few generations later, you are not going
to
accept that you are poor because your father or grandfather was lazy!
Therefore for free market to proceed unhindered there is a social cost that
we should incur. We have to ensure that disparity is kept in check. That
the
bottom 20% of the population at least has enough to be able to take
advantage of the "equal opportunities".

For whatever reasons, the Indian industry has not been exposed to
international competition and also many of our entrepreneurs and even
established industrialists may not have the resources to battle with the
best of the world. But we should not just open the flood gates fully
knowing
that many of them will die. If you read history every industrialised nation
has had protectionist policy (and even exploitation of labour, pollution
etc.) as sure as "every child had dirty diapers". Let us not be carried
away
by some 'isms' let us debate what is best for India.

 "socialism as administered by capitalists"!  I like that!

Sri


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------