6 ms·

I just hope it works very well because it seems every year there is one new populist measure. There is already: a. Food Security which provides food to nearly

I just hope it works very well because it seems every year there is one new populist measure. There is already: a. Food Security which provides food to nearly 2/3rd of the population or 820 million people. b. Minimum Support prices for grains which was hiked in this budget. Farmers also get loan waivers. c. National Rural Employment Guarantee which provides employment to over 100 million people

vthallam 9y ago
It's not a populist mesaure. You need this while you find a way to modernize agriculture practices so that the 60% who depend on farming won't have tough times. Also, there's enough money for all these schemes while still maintaining a decent fiscal deficit. What has to be worked on is the delivery of these. For better or worse linking Aadhar to bank accounts and delivering the benefits directly into the bank accounts helped to certain extent.
- thisisit 9y ago
  What exactly is your definition of a populist measure? and please state your sources for the claim that there is enough money, not only for these programs but others too, while still maintaining the fiscal deficit.
- Squareplums 9y ago
  If agriculture is modernized, it will need less men and will lead to more rural unemployment and hardships, no? Need to take measures so that 60% population should not depend on agriculture
dv_dt 9y ago
Universal healthcare is cast as a 'populist' measure in the US. But if you look at data of cost of healthcare for nations applying universal healthcare vs those who do not in developed nations, India might rationally look at it as an economic efficiency measure. Agricultural supports also can be looked at with a political filter, but the US provides government back agricultural insurance as a positive economic measure. Otherwise there may be a dwindling population of farmers and farming companies and increased food instability. One could argue about private vs publically funding these stabilization and boosting measures but it's much simpler/stabler to provide some forms long term guarantees via gov't policy than hoping a private market does it and does it correctly (without wiping out or consuming their customers). Are all these measures the same? No, but you have to look deeper than populist bad, private markets good.
- thisisit 9y ago
  Isn't universal healthcare that all people and communities have the same access to healthcare? India's population is 1.3 billion and this says it will cover 500 million people. So, it doesn't cover all people and communities. It covers some part of the population. Let's say Obamacare covered only a specific section of US what would have happened then? To clarify my stand here, I am in favor of Universal Healthcare but not this. Edit: I saw your edit on agriculture later. So, let me count that out too. We should do everything to support agriculture but the whole policy is skewed towards grains and every bump happens helps to ingrain the fact that grains good but vegetables bad. Do we really want that? So, I am in favor of a policy which works for all and not for specific sections which at least Indian laws tend to do.
  - digikata 9y ago
    The ACA did only cover a section of the US. 27 million were (are?) uninsured under the ACA. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/ https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the... I don't know the right answer on specifics of agricultural policy. I wish grains were less emphasized in US agricultural supports - but I also acknowledge that there is a built up knowledge base, and capital momentum around grains and the efficiency of food systems (as a total system around citizen health), isn't trivial. You have to trade off energy->food, caloric efficiency, and total health just to name a few factors.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    I think this is a much better level of discussion than populist or not-populist.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    In a lot of countries with universal healthcare it is provided by the government insuring the poorest and the unemployed, and requiring everyone else to insure themselves. The idea being that it gives those with the means who might want to pick and choose higher levels of coverage can do so, but nobody gets left behind.
vkou 9y ago
If ensuring people have access to food and water is populist, I'm pretty sure I don't want to live in whatever libertarian utopia is the converse.

vthallam 9y ago

It's not a populist mesaure. You need this while you find a way to modernize agriculture practices so that the 60% who depend on farming won't have tough times. Also, there's enough money for all these schemes while still maintaining a decent fiscal deficit. What has to be worked on is the delivery of these. For better or worse linking Aadhar to bank accounts and delivering the benefits directly into the bank accounts helped to certain extent.

thisisit 9y ago
What exactly is your definition of a populist measure? and please state your sources for the claim that there is enough money, not only for these programs but others too, while still maintaining the fiscal deficit.
Squareplums 9y ago
If agriculture is modernized, it will need less men and will lead to more rural unemployment and hardships, no? Need to take measures so that 60% population should not depend on agriculture

dv_dt 9y ago

Universal healthcare is cast as a 'populist' measure in the US. But if you look at data of cost of healthcare for nations applying universal healthcare vs those who do not in developed nations, India might rationally look at it as an economic efficiency measure. Agricultural supports also can be looked at with a political filter, but the US provides government back agricultural insurance as a positive economic measure. Otherwise there may be a dwindling population of farmers and farming companies and increased food instability. One could argue about private vs publically funding these stabilization and boosting measures but it's much simpler/stabler to provide some forms long term guarantees via gov't policy than hoping a private market does it and does it correctly (without wiping out or consuming their customers). Are all these measures the same? No, but you have to look deeper than populist bad, private markets good.

thisisit 9y ago
Isn't universal healthcare that all people and communities have the same access to healthcare? India's population is 1.3 billion and this says it will cover 500 million people. So, it doesn't cover all people and communities. It covers some part of the population. Let's say Obamacare covered only a specific section of US what would have happened then? To clarify my stand here, I am in favor of Universal Healthcare but not this. Edit: I saw your edit on agriculture later. So, let me count that out too. We should do everything to support agriculture but the whole policy is skewed towards grains and every bump happens helps to ingrain the fact that grains good but vegetables bad. Do we really want that? So, I am in favor of a policy which works for all and not for specific sections which at least Indian laws tend to do.
- digikata 9y ago
  The ACA did only cover a section of the US. 27 million were (are?) uninsured under the ACA. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/ https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the... I don't know the right answer on specifics of agricultural policy. I wish grains were less emphasized in US agricultural supports - but I also acknowledge that there is a built up knowledge base, and capital momentum around grains and the efficiency of food systems (as a total system around citizen health), isn't trivial. You have to trade off energy->food, caloric efficiency, and total health just to name a few factors.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  I think this is a much better level of discussion than populist or not-populist.
- vidarh 9y ago
  In a lot of countries with universal healthcare it is provided by the government insuring the poorest and the unemployed, and requiring everyone else to insure themselves. The idea being that it gives those with the means who might want to pick and choose higher levels of coverage can do so, but nobody gets left behind.

vkou 9y ago

If ensuring people have access to food and water is populist, I'm pretty sure I don't want to live in whatever libertarian utopia is the converse.