4 ms·

So basically, just like the U.S.?

by groby_b 16y ago

motvbi 16y ago
Yes you are right, India and the U.S. have a lot in common. The big difference here in the U.S. is the larger middle class compared to India. The other two big factors are corruption which is much more widespread and the caste system which won't go away anytime soon. Despite all that I believe India has moved in the right direction in the last 20 years. I couldn't imagine how it would have been if not for the reforms of the nineties, which I personally believe has benefited all. Yes the rich have gotten richer but the opportunities that didn't exist before do now for the middle class and the poor. People don't have to depend on the government to provide jobs.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- intended 16y ago
  Yeah, the 90s opening of the market crushed the Indian economy and removed a huge chunk of bad companies. Its good to remember that what stands today, is what was left after being opened up to the big bad world without any assistance. India has built its entire tech base, and IT ability from scratch.
ubasu 16y ago
Or rather, the US seems to be on its way to becoming like that. Currently, because of state investment in public infrastructure - civil rights, highways, public schools and universities, regulations etc - over the past century, the middle class enjoyed relative leisure and comfort even as the very rich lived out much more comfortable lives. All that seems to be diminishing because of regulatory capture and the wealth feedback loop created over the last 20-30 years.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Do you truly believe civil rights are worse today than in the past? More people attend university than ever before. The poor manage to survive quite nicely, and most of them don't work at all. Could you please explain how you believe things are diminishing in more detail? Something I've noticed - when someone says "just like the US" about a nation like India, they've almost certainly never left the US. At most, they've been to the EU, and often think Mexico is the depths of poverty).
  - ubasu 16y ago
    Not civil rights in itself, but because of economic issues, e.g. severe cutbacks to state universities, deliberate anti-union policies etc, the economically disadvantaged are impacted much more, which indirectly affects civil rights. Edit: The poor manage to survive quite nicely, and most of them don't work at all Do you mean Lucky Duckies: http://www.gocomics.com/features/search/Lucky%20Ducky http://www.gocomics.com/features/search/Lucky%20Ducky
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      How are well paid government workers the "economically disadvantaged"? And for that matter, how does reducing subsidies for a service consumed primarily by wealthier people (a college education) harm the economically disadvantaged? Smug comics which preach to the choir are great, but I like statistics more. Here are statistics on the work habits of the US poor (about 1 in 4 poor people works): http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf Here are statistics showing that the poor consume about 2-3x what they produce: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt (In India, obviously the stats look nothing like this.)
      - ubasu 16y ago
        The issue is not about state employees at the university, but who can afford the education there. Here in California, the Master Plan for Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Higher_Education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_High...) had the goal of providing education for everyone, and it is not unlikely that that is a significant reason for California's strong economy. But that is being eroded gradually. Anyway, obligatory XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
bioh42_2 16y ago
Funny and quite true. And it is also true for many other countries, with a mostly poor population. All over the world, one of the big benefits of wealth is the ability to build your own "island" or castle. But here's an interesting question. If we force everyone with wealth and power to live like the masses, then the only way to improve their lot would be to improve all of society or emigrate. Would we then see a much stronger push against corruption and bad economic policy? This is obviously a purely intellectual exercise for fun. Some people believe that at some point a country's oligarchy will try to improve things for everyone at least a little bit. This is a very naive view of wealth and power in a chaotic country. The only ones who can, and some times do, push for reform are the masses. But mobilized masses have short attention spans and can never push for important details. The details remain the devil's domain. This is why masses can get rid of dictators, but everything after the dictator is a painfully slow grind of minuscule improvements. I believe a slow grind of minuscule improvements describes India's past 50 or so years quite well. Things are improving, just not nearly enough within any one human life time.
- alextp 16y ago
  > If we force everyone with wealth and power to live like the masses, then the only way to improve their lot would be to improve all of society or emigrate. I think this is called comunism (as Marx intended, not as was executed in the USSR, Cuba, and any other place in practice). The problem with this is that if you don't allow for the existence of official channels the rich can use to improve their lot then there is no point in being rich, so most people will either not bother and work as little as they can to live or find unofficial channels where they can have power to improve their lives (see the communist parties in the former USSR and China). Of course, communism can arguably work, but how to do so is still an open problem.
  - bioh42_2 16y ago
    I think this is called comunism I think communism is chiefly defined by public ownership. What I propose is an obviously crazy impractical outlawing of owning big houses with much better then average infrastructure. It would still be perfectly legal to have tons of money and lobby your politicians hard. So think of it as law against big, fancy houses, and gated communities.

So basically, just like the U.S.?

by groby_b 16y ago

So basically, just like the U.S.?

Yes you are right, India and the U.S. have a lot in common. The big difference here in the U.S. is the larger middle class compared to India. The other two big factors are corruption which is much more widespread and the caste system which won't go away anytime soon. Despite all that I believe India has moved in the right direction in the last 20 years. I couldn't imagine how it would have been if not for the reforms of the nineties, which I personally believe has benefited all. Yes the rich have gotten richer but the opportunities that didn't exist before do now for the middle class and the poor. People don't have to depend on the government to provide jobs.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
intended 16y ago
Yeah, the 90s opening of the market crushed the Indian economy and removed a huge chunk of bad companies. Its good to remember that what stands today, is what was left after being opened up to the big bad world without any assistance. India has built its entire tech base, and IT ability from scratch.

ubasu 16y ago

Or rather, the US seems to be on its way to becoming like that. Currently, because of state investment in public infrastructure - civil rights, highways, public schools and universities, regulations etc - over the past century, the middle class enjoyed relative leisure and comfort even as the very rich lived out much more comfortable lives. All that seems to be diminishing because of regulatory capture and the wealth feedback loop created over the last 20-30 years.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Do you truly believe civil rights are worse today than in the past? More people attend university than ever before. The poor manage to survive quite nicely, and most of them don't work at all. Could you please explain how you believe things are diminishing in more detail? Something I've noticed - when someone says "just like the US" about a nation like India, they've almost certainly never left the US. At most, they've been to the EU, and often think Mexico is the depths of poverty).
- ubasu 16y ago
  Not civil rights in itself, but because of economic issues, e.g. severe cutbacks to state universities, deliberate anti-union policies etc, the economically disadvantaged are impacted much more, which indirectly affects civil rights. Edit: The poor manage to survive quite nicely, and most of them don't work at all Do you mean Lucky Duckies: http://www.gocomics.com/features/search/Lucky%20Ducky http://www.gocomics.com/features/search/Lucky%20Ducky
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    How are well paid government workers the "economically disadvantaged"? And for that matter, how does reducing subsidies for a service consumed primarily by wealthier people (a college education) harm the economically disadvantaged? Smug comics which preach to the choir are great, but I like statistics more. Here are statistics on the work habits of the US poor (about 1 in 4 poor people works): http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf Here are statistics showing that the poor consume about 2-3x what they produce: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt (In India, obviously the stats look nothing like this.)
    - ubasu 16y ago
      The issue is not about state employees at the university, but who can afford the education there. Here in California, the Master Plan for Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Higher_Education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_High...) had the goal of providing education for everyone, and it is not unlikely that that is a significant reason for California's strong economy. But that is being eroded gradually. Anyway, obligatory XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/

bioh42_2 16y ago

Funny and quite true. And it is also true for many other countries, with a mostly poor population. All over the world, one of the big benefits of wealth is the ability to build your own "island" or castle. But here's an interesting question. If we force everyone with wealth and power to live like the masses, then the only way to improve their lot would be to improve all of society or emigrate. Would we then see a much stronger push against corruption and bad economic policy? This is obviously a purely intellectual exercise for fun. Some people believe that at some point a country's oligarchy will try to improve things for everyone at least a little bit. This is a very naive view of wealth and power in a chaotic country. The only ones who can, and some times do, push for reform are the masses. But mobilized masses have short attention spans and can never push for important details. The details remain the devil's domain. This is why masses can get rid of dictators, but everything after the dictator is a painfully slow grind of minuscule improvements. I believe a slow grind of minuscule improvements describes India's past 50 or so years quite well. Things are improving, just not nearly enough within any one human life time.

alextp 16y ago
> If we force everyone with wealth and power to live like the masses, then the only way to improve their lot would be to improve all of society or emigrate. I think this is called comunism (as Marx intended, not as was executed in the USSR, Cuba, and any other place in practice). The problem with this is that if you don't allow for the existence of official channels the rich can use to improve their lot then there is no point in being rich, so most people will either not bother and work as little as they can to live or find unofficial channels where they can have power to improve their lives (see the communist parties in the former USSR and China). Of course, communism can arguably work, but how to do so is still an open problem.
- bioh42_2 16y ago
  I think this is called comunism I think communism is chiefly defined by public ownership. What I propose is an obviously crazy impractical outlawing of owning big houses with much better then average infrastructure. It would still be perfectly legal to have tons of money and lobby your politicians hard. So think of it as law against big, fancy houses, and gated communities.