“Socialist” Needs To Be Dropped From Preamble

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Sakal Gharelu Ustad, Nov 26, 2015.

  1. punjab47

    punjab47 महाबलामहावीर्यामहासत्यपराक्रमासर्वाग्रेक्षत्रियाजट Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    587
    It's not job of king to do these kings, he feeds poor in times of famine but otherwise leaves them alone & protects their interests.

    In return they give their loyalty (tax)
    --
    As far as natural resources & forests those also his job.

    Other stuff seems retarded to interfere in but we should discuss the concepts i.e things like factory or pollution.

    I.e small business which doesn't affect others is one thing, big factory or other thing like fdi state has to protect subject & intervene due to wider effects.
     
  2. mikhail

    mikhail Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,417
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Location:
    Land of Intolerance and App Wapsi
    Baba Saheb was the best thing that could have happened to us Dharmics in all these years.He was literally sent by the Supreme Lord to guide us through our rough times and to make India into one of the strongest countries in the world!!Now before anyone starts saying about his burning of the "Manusmriti" in public,let me clarify the fact that the book was itself corrupted by some vested parties over the years.THat book is simply a book on blatant racism all in the name of Sanatan Dharma which is absolutely wrong.What Babasaheb did was actually a favor to most of us,it's because of his farsightedness that Nehru declared Untouchability a punishable crime in 1956 by an Amendment Act.We owe a lot to this man and i hope he gets the respect that he really deserves from a grateful country and her citizens.
     
  3. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,528
    Likes Received:
    17,725
    My problem is not to debate pro and cons of Socialism. I can recall one of my detailed discussion with @Rage; where he debated against Nehru's choice of siding with Russia and his model of socialist progress. I was on the other side of the argument even knowing the references he is providing were far more stronger.

    I built my case on psychology/state of mind of newly Independent country who was under colonial oppression had to be skeptical about siding with same western power in years to come. America was filling the vacuum that was being left by Britain. It started making in road into gulf country and started controlling sea lanes up to Suez canal and then Pakistan embraced her without any apprehension. We had all the reasons to believe that it was colonialism 2.0 in making.

    An argument was made by Rage that we badly missed the train in 70's when China made a brave move of opening up the market. I was partially in an agreement as it took us twenty more years to open up the economy; still reluctantly and under adverse circumstance but not by informed decision making.

    I gave my own excuses of our conflict with Pakistan but at the back of mind I knew it was Congress-I's obsession with Nehruvian legacy and we are still paying the price as his third generation still thrusting the same on us. Not to mention Asiatic civilizations are Socialist by its core.

    But if China was able to do it, it should'nt have been difficult for us too. But China was a centralized power and we were not.

    Having said all that the point I am making here is, expecting our previous leadership to be more wiser is a bit of stretching the accusation. Socialist reforms were working, if not or they were having mediocre result; we still needed a good incubation period to understand it.

    In my opening line I said my problem is not pro and cons of Socialism, my problem is to make sure we resist it now and wean it off systematically; sooner the better.

    We must identify and appreciate if there are signs and signals coming out from our policies that we are getting rid of it or not. So far UPA-2 till 2014 was a disaster. High expenditure and populist scheme but low revenue generation was deleterious.

    With present dispensation I can see a bit of direction in theory of making right noises like opening up market, FDI, ease of doing business etc. But the kind of politics is now dominating and ganging up of same notorious forces, showing their strength in Bihar for example; road to recovery is never going to be as dramatic as Chinese were able to pull it out.

    Modi is never going to become Deng Xiaoping, not by choice but by circumstances.
     
  4. punjab47

    punjab47 महाबलामहावीर्यामहासत्यपराक्रमासर्वाग्रेक्षत्रियाजट Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    587
    He was a sexual deviant & a pervert as well as an ungrateful namak harami who insulted his king.

    Why is my post being deleted when nothing I said is untrue? @Sakal Gharelu Ustad
     
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    It is impossible to see what policies are sub-optimal in what @Bangalorean wrote.

    That the government buying grains at a fixed rate was a solution to a problem. If anyone suggests that this solution is sub-optimal, then there should be a more optimal solution in the offing. I see none. The only thing I see is opposition to implement the solution, which will only allow the problem to persist.

    "restricting market entry in agricultural wholesale market" - no sure what that means.

    "diesel subsidies" - it was necessary, and a gradual withdrawal is what is needed. As a matter of fact, any transition should be gradual.

    "Anti-hoarding campaign" is absolutely necessary in India.
     
  6. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,119
    Likes Received:
    7,717
    Just to give you a glimpse of the argument.

    - Govt. control APMC i.e. number of traders. On top farmers are forced to sell at local market.
    - These traders pay big money to become traders and use their monopoly power and extract rents.
    - These traders, because they are small in number, can coordinate and hoard.

    So, it is a problem generated by govt. intervention. First you create APMC, then these guys make monopoly rents and hoard, then you again ask govt. to act against hoarders. In a market with free entry, the rents of traders will go to zero and they will find it impossible to coordinate on hoarding.
     
    Mad Indian, DingDong and Bangalorean like this.
  7. DingDong

    DingDong Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    4,403
    Location:
    Delhi
    Free Market is not possible in India. It is only possible in countries where Monopoly and Competition laws are enforced in "Real".

    Mixed economy is not equal to socialism, the modern macro-economics which was refined after the 1914 economic crisis does prescribe Government's intervention so that proper checks and balances are maintained. I am not talking superficially I have studied Macro Economics in some details.

    Cartels and Syndicates run the supply chains in India, and that is a side effect of too much regulation, but at the same time too little will do no good. We need to maintain proper balance.
     
    pmaitra likes this.
  8. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,835
    Likes Received:
    7,736
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    Monopolies can't form in a free market. It just can't.

    Name one company which has been able to monopolise the market? Even windows can't do it.
     
  9. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,119
    Likes Received:
    7,717
    Monopolies can form in certain markets which require huge capital investment. Actually natural monopolies exist in sectors like coal mining, water supply etc.

    But would it exist it agricultural commodity market? No. If anyone of us can go and buy 5kg of rice and sell at a low price, the monopoly is dead.

    What @DingDong probably means here is the collusion of police with market players to ensure monopoly by using state force or goons? But I do not think without active state intervention in policies like APMC, cartels can exist. Cartels exist by understanding with local govt. in power.
     
    pmaitra likes this.
  10. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,835
    Likes Received:
    7,736
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    That might have been true before, but with capital being so vast, I don't think it will hold true even now. Iirc , USA had a successful private operated railways, before the overzealous consumer advocates(read then leftists) started poking their nose there to make it more and more uncompetitive and finally was forced into nationalisation
     
  11. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    You have not answered my question.
    Let me retry:

    Minimum Support Price Scheme is the name of the scheme whereby the government buys grains at a set price. This was done so that farmers do not suffer due to excessive production. If farmers suffer due to excessive production, farmers would be induced to leave the agricultural sector. This sector being highly dependent on nature (rain, cyclones), their sustainability is necessary for food security. So, today even if there is high yield, there can be low yield next year. Therefore, India cannot afford to lose farmers to other sectors. We need to retain the workforce in the farming sector, despite high yield.

    Now, my question is, what is your alternative solution to Minimum Support Price Scheme and how would it be more optimal than Minimum Support Price Scheme?

    We can talk about hoarding and subsequent steps later. Let us first address Minimum Support Price Scheme.
     
  12. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,119
    Likes Received:
    7,717
    India should get its farmers to leave agriculture. Indian agriculture just produce dependents due to small scale. We are working on wrong premises and hence end up with wrong solutions.

    MSP is a wrong policy on many accounts. I do not want to go into detail there. But I can quickly give an alternative. Govt. can guarantee minimum farm income in case of weather shock. Also, govt. can force farmers to buy insurance schemes with the help of which it can transfer income from one region to the other. India is a big country with harvest of 2-3 crops every year, so such policy can be maintained with little fiscal transfer.
     
    Mad Indian likes this.
  13. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I don't disagree that some people from the agricultural sector need to be moved to other sectors. I just want to know how it will be done. Forcing farmers to buy insurance is a valid step. How can the government guarantee minimum farm income? Minimum Support Price Scheme does exactly that. What is your more optimal alternative?
     
  14. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,119
    Likes Received:
    7,717
    No, minimum support price biases crop choice and is biased towards rich farmers. Most of the crops do not even fall under MSP category.

    Minimum income guarantee will be something like NREGA but without any manual work and will only kick in if there is bad weather shock. On top because farmers will need to pay for insurance, it will not be a big fiscal drain as MNREGA. Also, since rich farmers will lose more from this policy, they would leave agriculture first and help in consolidation of farm sector. Also, it is much easier for rich farmers to move from agriculture to services. Low income farmers would move due to higher wages in manufacturing and service sector.
     
  15. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,835
    Likes Received:
    7,736
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    Socialists are masters in providing solutions to problems they create in their economic model, which does not exist in a free market.

    BTW, what's the big deal about hoarding anyway? If the price is high, farmers will plant more pulses the next year and the price will naturally come down and hoarders will lose money.

    And of course, imports would largely negate this issue. Guess who keeps the imports artificially closed by their good intention to protect farmers?

    So if the price goes too high, protect consumers by subsidising them and then when too low , subsidise farmers. Doesn't this sound similar to the monkey(govt) which split a lunch among two cats?
     
  16. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    How is it biased towards rich farmers?

    Crops are included under MPSS so that most farmers are covered, regardless of whether most crops fall under it or not. The objective is to cover most farmers, and not most crops. Covering most crops is a false premise.

    List of crops covered:
    MPSS kicks in only when there is a low price shock (whether it is due to bad weather or due to excessive yield). Should there be no intervention if there is excessive yield and a consequent price drop?

    No issues with insurance.
     
  17. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,119
    Likes Received:
    7,717
    You cannot fulfil both objectives at the same time i.e. give high price to farmers and low cost to consumers. Classic fallacy!
     
  18. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,119
    Likes Received:
    7,717
    Rich farmers have high acreage and hence high production. So, significantly large portion of subsidies go to them.

    Not all farmers grow the crops covered under MPSS. This year they were crying due to low availability of pulses. Why did that happen? Because farmers shifted away from lentils production due to low MSP.
     
  19. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,835
    Likes Received:
    7,736
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    And people are too dumb to realise this is dumb. :(

    BTW, who determines what's the right price? Really is there such a thing as right price? Was 10000rupees for a black and white tvin 1980 a right price? Is an LCD TV for 10000 rupees today the right price? Was Nokia 1100 when it cost 6000 rupees in 2005 the right price. Is it the right price now, for rupees 600?


    If none of these questions can be answered, then how exactly do these people think they can give the "right price" for food items?:rolleyes:

    It blows my mind really
     
  20. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,274
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    Location:
    EST, USA
    That is true. Higher the acreage, higher the benefits from subsidies.

    Lentils are covered under MPSS.
     

Share This Page