There you go again !!!
The facade of a caring government came crashing down when the government was literally forced by pure economic considerations to raise the prices of petrol and diesel by Rs 2.5 and 2.0 respectively.
I have never understood the economics of subsidies. Oil products' prices affect everybody, and it would be foolish to assume that they don't. But why would you want to provide a cross subsidy, by putting one man's burdon on another, is beyond me.
To be fair, if it were an essential drug, the lack of access to which could result in numerous deaths, by all means, subsidise it. But oil?
Even in the case of the subsidised essential drugs, there can be arguments against it, but I would come back to it later.
Firstly oil.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, why should I bear someone else's burdon?
Of course there's a very compelling humanitarian argument against it.
But also consider that if you consider per capita oil usage, the rich use much more oil than the poor. So if the rich use 2 litres of oil a day, and the poor use 0.5 litres of oil a day, a subsidy of Rs 2/litre of oil makes it s subsidy of Rs 4/day for the rich and Rs 1/day for the poor. Thus a big chunk of government's subsidy money goes into subsidizing the rich. What an utterly untargetted help to the poor !!!
Finally, when one product in the market is subsidized, you stifle the innovation that could lead to development of alternative products. For example, as long as LPG cylinders are available for Rs 250, after a Rs 130/cylinder subsidy, no one would want to switch to bio-gas, or solar cookers. One of the reasons why innovation failed in the welfare states (including India) was the absence of the incentive to innovate - you got it - because of subsidies.
A friend recounted a very interesting story. In the USSR, the state subsidized the bread so that the poor could eat. They subsidized the bread to that extent that it was cheaper than cattle feed, and the people fed bread to their animals !!!
Wherever the state has tried to be a (pseudo) welfare state, it has
1. forced one (rich) man to take up another (poor man's) burdon,
2. spend more money on the rich than poor,
3. stifled innovation that could get cheaper, better, faster product in the market.
If you look at points 1 and 2, you'd realize that they cancle each other out. The rich pay more tax, and take the bigger chunk of the subsidies, because they consume more. The poor pay less tax and get a smaller share of the subsidies. Sounds good? Then why do we need subsidies anyway? If I am rich, but don't use much oil, then I end up cross subsidizing other rich !!! (This even does not have any humanitarian aspect to it).
When we have examples of welfare states failing (including the USSR and China giving up on its welfare commitments and taking the path of Capitalism) why would you want to try all of them out yourself?
Because only in dictionary economics comes before politics.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Friday, June 17, 2005
Quota for Muslims
I am not a Muslim, so you know who's writing this.
Recently AP Cabinet announced a "sweeping", "across the board" 5% quota for Muslims. Now I know that the cries of "appeasement" would not be far behind (and so would be bandhs, dharnas and demonstrations). But I would ask you to count 10, and take a deep breath, and read what I have to say. And then you can do whatever you think is right.
Firstly, when SC/ST in India enjoy the benefits of reservations in jobs, why should Muslims be denied this pleasure. Its a no-brainer that Muslims are really a backward lot in India. They have really low literacy rate, a really high crime rate, and as my brother says who is a doctor, a really high disease rate. Why should a State discriminate with about 12% of population on the basis of religion?
I believe by this time, some of you might be nodding, and some might be thinking "but its their 'backward' religion that is responsible". Yes. But is it not the same for SCs/STs (their religion segregated them, leading them to remain backward)? Or for that matter, what about OBCs? They get a quota, despite the fact that the religion never oppressed them. If they "deserve" reservations, Muslims do present a stronger case. Definitely.
And its definitely time that being the majority community, the Hindus recognise this and gladly and willingly gave their share to their minority brethren.
For those of you (Hindus) who believe in WIIFM (what's-in-it-for-me), let me say that a literate, financially independent Muslim is less likely to listen to the venom that's spewed weekly from the altars of Jama Masjid (I'd apologise for this statement if it hurts you, but trust me, this is the view-from-the-outside), and less likely to be a fundamentalist. He's more likely to be friendly and less likely to be a "danger" to the majority. Now how's that for the reward?
Oh of course some of you would dispute that, citing the examples of the urdu-professor-cum-plotter-of-parliament-attacks and the likes. Yes, education and financial independence are not a panacea for all ills, but they sure make a difference.
Now, I'd go a level further. If SC/STs get a quota commensurate with their population, why not extend this quote to 12%, which is what Muslims are, in India? Should the State not not discriminate on the basis of population? This is where the whole issue smacks of politics. This is not an attempt to better the fate of 12% of Indian population. This is an attempt to garner votes, to consolidate the vote bank. To ensure the backing of the community for a long time to come. Congress is desperate, because it known it has lost the backing of this community and has no real support base anywhere in the country.
Its also time Muslims saw through these vote bank politics of these parties. Its also time that Muslims realize that these petty appeasement for which they've supported one party or the other (like Congress, or SP, or RJD) has led to a steady disillusionment of their majority brethren, and led them to believe that Muslims are "pampered" and "appeased", often at the cost of the Hindus. Otherwise its only a matter of time before the majority consolidates a vote bank. And the rise of BJP, is an example. One way to "comfort" Hindus is to reach to the mainstream, support the Hindu parties like BJP (not as in blind support like they've done for Congress and SP in the past, but to do away with the mental block of BJP being a pro-hindutva party, and vote for or against it on its own merits), and be open. That would lead to greater friendliness with the majority.
After all, if we're going to be neighbors, why not live in peace?
And now that I am done speaking, I would gladly listen to your views.
Recently AP Cabinet announced a "sweeping", "across the board" 5% quota for Muslims. Now I know that the cries of "appeasement" would not be far behind (and so would be bandhs, dharnas and demonstrations). But I would ask you to count 10, and take a deep breath, and read what I have to say. And then you can do whatever you think is right.
Firstly, when SC/ST in India enjoy the benefits of reservations in jobs, why should Muslims be denied this pleasure. Its a no-brainer that Muslims are really a backward lot in India. They have really low literacy rate, a really high crime rate, and as my brother says who is a doctor, a really high disease rate. Why should a State discriminate with about 12% of population on the basis of religion?
I believe by this time, some of you might be nodding, and some might be thinking "but its their 'backward' religion that is responsible". Yes. But is it not the same for SCs/STs (their religion segregated them, leading them to remain backward)? Or for that matter, what about OBCs? They get a quota, despite the fact that the religion never oppressed them. If they "deserve" reservations, Muslims do present a stronger case. Definitely.
And its definitely time that being the majority community, the Hindus recognise this and gladly and willingly gave their share to their minority brethren.
For those of you (Hindus) who believe in WIIFM (what's-in-it-for-me), let me say that a literate, financially independent Muslim is less likely to listen to the venom that's spewed weekly from the altars of Jama Masjid (I'd apologise for this statement if it hurts you, but trust me, this is the view-from-the-outside), and less likely to be a fundamentalist. He's more likely to be friendly and less likely to be a "danger" to the majority. Now how's that for the reward?
Oh of course some of you would dispute that, citing the examples of the urdu-professor-cum-plotter-of-parliament-attacks and the likes. Yes, education and financial independence are not a panacea for all ills, but they sure make a difference.
Now, I'd go a level further. If SC/STs get a quota commensurate with their population, why not extend this quote to 12%, which is what Muslims are, in India? Should the State not not discriminate on the basis of population? This is where the whole issue smacks of politics. This is not an attempt to better the fate of 12% of Indian population. This is an attempt to garner votes, to consolidate the vote bank. To ensure the backing of the community for a long time to come. Congress is desperate, because it known it has lost the backing of this community and has no real support base anywhere in the country.
Its also time Muslims saw through these vote bank politics of these parties. Its also time that Muslims realize that these petty appeasement for which they've supported one party or the other (like Congress, or SP, or RJD) has led to a steady disillusionment of their majority brethren, and led them to believe that Muslims are "pampered" and "appeased", often at the cost of the Hindus. Otherwise its only a matter of time before the majority consolidates a vote bank. And the rise of BJP, is an example. One way to "comfort" Hindus is to reach to the mainstream, support the Hindu parties like BJP (not as in blind support like they've done for Congress and SP in the past, but to do away with the mental block of BJP being a pro-hindutva party, and vote for or against it on its own merits), and be open. That would lead to greater friendliness with the majority.
After all, if we're going to be neighbors, why not live in peace?
And now that I am done speaking, I would gladly listen to your views.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Hungry for heroes - 2
Its not the happiest thing to write, but write I must. I was ready to eat crow. But whatever I predicted turned to be true.
Sania Mirza crashed out of the French Open singles in the first round, and in the second round in the doubles. And if you noticed, the media didn't report it at all. In fact I had to go to French Open website to figure that out.
This reminds me, that whenever there was a cricket match involving India that I wasn't watching, I could know the results this way - if in the next day's paper, there's the big pic of Indians celebrating or some Indian player in action on his way to a great performance, or a really big headline touting Indian win, India won. If not, India lost, and I'd find that article in the sports section.
On the other side. Narayan Karthikeyan is also struggling with Jordan. To be fair to him, the guy has his feet on the ground.
I wanted them to win, but I know how it works in India.
Don't be surprised if you see more Sania Mirzas and Karthikeyans in the making, and these ones dumped for good. For the country hungry for heroes, this is a way of life.
Sania Mirza crashed out of the French Open singles in the first round, and in the second round in the doubles. And if you noticed, the media didn't report it at all. In fact I had to go to French Open website to figure that out.
This reminds me, that whenever there was a cricket match involving India that I wasn't watching, I could know the results this way - if in the next day's paper, there's the big pic of Indians celebrating or some Indian player in action on his way to a great performance, or a really big headline touting Indian win, India won. If not, India lost, and I'd find that article in the sports section.
On the other side. Narayan Karthikeyan is also struggling with Jordan. To be fair to him, the guy has his feet on the ground.
I wanted them to win, but I know how it works in India.
Don't be surprised if you see more Sania Mirzas and Karthikeyans in the making, and these ones dumped for good. For the country hungry for heroes, this is a way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)