Slashdot Mirror

Good luck to them and all, But they have bigger problems they they should be pouring money in to.

You could use the same blanket statement about the US. I refer you to this little tidbit: Poverty in India. And I quote: "India still has the world's largest number of poor people in a single country. Of its nearly 1 billion inhabitants, an estimated 350-400 million are below the poverty line, 75 per cent of them in the rural areas."

Or perhaps because they knew their US jobs would soon be shipped there. And when you live amongst that much poverty, of course your standard of living is better.

GDP is just an economist's smokescreen. They trot those numbers out like somehow that money is making it's way into everyone's pockets, when in fact the poor are still getting poorer, the rich are still getting richer, and the middle class is still footing the bill.

For any of these examples -- if a fee is collected from the entire community, um.. isn't that involuntary taxes?

The fee is voluntary, because no one is forced by a central authority to pay it. They can choose freely. If the consequences of not contributing toward shared services include earning the ill will of one's neighbors, that does not make the fee involuntary. For example, one does not forfeit rights to one's property by refusing to join the community fire insurance program, while a refusal to pay property taxes can result in jail time or outright confiscation of one's property.

And would the leading fire department *really* agree to special interactive agreements with their up-and-coming competition if the other alternative was their monopoly? After all, who's going to prosecute them for abusing their monopoly powers?

They would agree if it was in their own best interest. If they were assured (through a contract) that they would be payed for their efforts in stopping the fire, then why would they refuse? Ignoring the fire would earn the anger of their own customers, who might be friends of the injured property owner, or whose own property may have been put in danger by their greed.

And frankly, there's a pretty big difference between communities I've seen in, say, India where low-income people subsist off of private charity (this is called "begging"; surviving on welfare while looking for a job is not an option) and any community I'd like to live in.

I am not an expert on the economic conditions in India, but a some quick research brought up this site, with the following quote: "The main causes of poverty are illiteracy, a population growth rate by far exceeding the economic growth rate for the better part of the past 50 years, protectionist policies pursued since 1947 to 1991 which prevented large amounts of foreign investment in the country." Laying aside the educational and population-growth issues, which would be present under nearly all government systems, the only distinguishing cause of poverty in India appears to be the protectionist policies created by the Indian government to protect local businesses by cutting off trade with other countries. Since most wealth is created through trade and specialization, this policy seems to ignore basic economics.

A capitalist economy tends to unfairly make the rich richer and the poor poorer (I say unfairly because wealth does not correlate well with a person's actual intelligence and work -- is Gates 1000 times smarter than his basic engineers?). It's also true that as a person gains more and more wealth, it's less and less valuable to them. If Gates misplaced 100K it wouldn't affect him in any way, while it could change the life completely of that entry-level engineer (or heck, someone actually poor and unemployed).

But the fact remains that the rich feel entitled even to inherited wealth that hasn't cost them a drop of sweat.

True, wealth does not always correlate to intelligence or "hard work". Sometimes it is a product of random change (e.g. inheritance). Sometimes it is a product of taking risks that happened to pay off well (e.g. Bill Gates, for the most part). In any event, those who accumulate wealth by honest means, as opposed to fraud or theft, do so to the benefit of society as a whole, because they can only gain wealth by meeting the needs of others at a price suitable to both parties. Economics is not a zero-sum game; in a voluntary trade, both sides benefit, or they would not trade. This is a basic principle of free-market economics. The rule of "robbing the rich to feed the poor" removes the incentive to meet other's needs and replaces it with involuntary transfer of property, with an overall negative effect on the productivity of the entire society.

It's a pretty good assumption. If farmers could be more competitive, they would -- they'd make more money. If we start importing food, it'll probably be from one big country, just like how a lot of countries depend on the US right now. Even if that's wrong and we get it from several providers, it's easy to form a bloc when you've got something valuable.

Being dependent on foreign countries for vital resources is a bad idea. Look at the trouble with the middle east. Imagine skyrocketing food prices because our 10 main grain suppliers figured out they can team up and have us by the balls.

http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm

That link contains some interesting information on how becoming agriculturally self-sufficient helped turn India around post-colonization. Also highlights some serious consequences of being dependent for food -- mass starvation during warfare, a very real possibility.

The efficient British administration bungled on this as late as Bengal Famine, 1943. In fact, 3 million are supposed to have died in this famine, and caused , among other things, caused Amartya Sen to take up economics, in particular, famine studies.

On the other hand, basic science (like space research) deserves to be encouraged by all (civilized) nations. Imagine medieval Italians or 18th century Britons waiting till all poverty was eradicated. Science and civilization do not progress in such a manner.

> Indian Universities are of very poor quality, just to bring your typical Indian male arrogance down a notch.

And i believe you have attended one to know better? Allow me to vouch that i have attended universities in three countries and The University of Pune, is top notch.

And i noticed u chose to bring down my typical Indian male arrogance with a bout of good old fashioned stereotyping.

> Also, I suspect you are in the U.S. sucking off the teat of those who you mock.

Really now, u do know what international student fees are like... right? And no financial aid at this university or anywhere in this state. i pay over (no hyperbole) 4 times the fees of a local resident student. And im not even counting the financial aid that local students get. Couple to that 1/10th the buying power (as mentioned in earlier posts to this article). Now whose sucking whose teat?

> Your country has a billion people, 56% unemployment rate and a 52% literacy rate. It is nothing to brag about. If it was, you would still be living there.

What measure of unemployment rate are u considering? Just because a person does not get a paycheck which he cashes in at a bank does not imply that he/she is unemployed. i'll shed a little light on that 50 something percent unemployment rate u dug up. Hows 8.8% sound. Enlighten yourself. Fyi: the unemployment rate has fallen by 2% in the last couple of years. Historically, India has never had an umemployment rate above 30%.

The simple truth is that a VERY LARGE part of the workforce is employed in the "unorganised sector". Enlighten yourself more on the issues before flinging out cocktail party numbers.

The illiteracy numbers have declined steadlily during the last half century. And here's a plan. Why don't we dump those 48% illiterates (thats about 480 million) in your hometown and u try to educate them in less than two generations!

.... And we are still on topic. with technology such as this broadband distance learning... the literacy drive might be successful is less than the projected number of generations.

It's not about spying or ICBM's or anything, the key factor here is, believe it or not, agriculture. I know other patriotic Indians have problems accepting this, but India is still largely an agriculture-based economy, with the population especially concentrated in rural areas. With the exploding population creating pressure on food resources, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research actively involves itself in creating better yielding food varieties .

Students of Indian history would have heard about the green revolution that created self-sustainence in food; a crucial post-independence achievement considering food scarcity situations such as the 1943 Bengal Famine (the one on which Amartya Sen did economic research and won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economics).

Now with satellite technology, ICAR can identify which land areas are suitable for which crops and therefore goad farmers into growing those varieties (remember that India is a sub-continent; you have all sorts of terrain, from deserts to plains to plateaus to, of course, mountains.

So accurately knowing which crop goes best where is critical information for the hungry masses (over-cliched, but it's true). Methinks that this will be the biggest use, followed closely by telecommunications and satellite television AND then by urban planning (Mumbai will have 24.7 million people by 2005).

PS:- Note that I'm not saying that satellite technology wont be used for other purposes; I definitely want India to use cutting-edge technology against a couple of motherfuckers, but talking only about that would be misleading.

Seriously, you don't think that you are somewhat biased?

Here are some facts from the CIA handbook on India. These are more reliable than your very biased observations.

GDP: purchasing power parity - $2.2 trillion (2000 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 6% (2000 est.)
GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $2,200 (2000 est.)
GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 25%

industry: 24%

services: 51% (2000)
Population below poverty line: 35% (1994 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: 3.5%

highest 10%: 33.5% (1997)
Inflation rate (consumer prices): 5.4% (2000 est.)

A growth rate of 6% with a purchasing parity of $2.2 trillion ain't too shabby. The Indian middle class is estimated at 300 million people. Any simple characterization of India is deeply flawed if it does not take into account the wide spectrum of people that you find there.

here