[hot_wheels]

Originally Posted by guru_max

We sure have a long way to go and the progress sometimes is painfully slow, but i believe we are on the right track.

I agree with you. Real-world complex systems like civilizations, economies, trade networks, information networks, etc., particularly large-scale ones are chaotic by nature. But as we know from fundamental physics, chaos is also a system that works and is often more resilient to disturbances than controlled systems. The Indian nation is a classic case of chaos in action. scattered government, multiple civilizational flaws, no unified vision, etc. However, this chaotic nature, I think, is its greatest asset. It flounders, it self-corrects but ultimately moves forward.

Also, I believe we are at the lower cusp of the exponential 'S' curve. Development and growth can seem stagnant until, suddenly, they take off. Remember that China started its economic reforms in 1970, but it took till the 2000s to witness that exponential growth phase that left everyone else in the dust. We are a young country with lots of hope. I also believe that things have changed a fair bit with respect to poverty alleviation and social justice. While we lament the current state of these societal challenges, it helps to have a proper perspective on how far we have come. India has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, second only to China.

India has other unique strengths - it is the world's largest free single market democracy (however flawed, is any day better than an authoritarian rule), enormous young population, most powerful, influential, and spread-out diaspora in the world to bring in fresh ideas and perspectives, etc. Don't forget that what China did is unprecedented in history against all traditional wisdom and predictions (became rich while being communist). It wrote its own unique story. I believe we will write our own. India's moment will come whether we wish for it or not.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by hot_wheels

Don't forget that what China did is unprecedented in history against all traditional wisdom and predictions (became rich while being communist).

Did they? Karl Marx created Communism as an antidote to Capitalism. They can only follow full-fledged socialism.

But China has been practicing capitalism for over 40 years now. They have the second highest number of billionaires in the world. How can a communist country have billionaires? China is a one-party dictatorship whose economic system is capitalism. They stopped being a communist country in the 70s.

Originally Posted by wiki

The constitution of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the CCP constitution state that its form of government is "people's democratic dictatorship". The state constitution also holds that China is a one-party state that is governed by the CCP.

[krrisdrive]

Originally Posted by m8002?

What I am questioning is the assumption that all govt. schools and hospitals are great and sufficient for all the people who cannot afford private one.

Originally Posted by NomadSK

You are totally wrong about the Hospitals, the best ones with the best doctors are generally government hospitals, the cream of the doctors practice there, now again here I'm not talking about primary health centers, where the basic criteria is to cater to the lower class of the society and meet their basic needs.

How about some statistics? This is from government itself. Indian Public Health Standard from MoHFW.
Link to the dashboard below:
https://iphs.mohfw.gov.in/?trk=public_post_comment-text

As of now 85,865 facilities are assessed out of 2,00,998 = 42%
33,051 facilities have scored less than 50% = 38%
36,740 facilities have scored between 50% to 80% = 44%
16,074 facilities have scored more than 80% = 18%
Roughly across various type of facilities (like district level, sub district level, PHC etc), 38% to 43% are assessed so far.

Now some tit-bits:
1. A TOI report on 29th June 2024 states that at that time 40,451 facilities were covered (20%) in which 8089 facilities (20%) scored more than 80%. That means with more participating facilities, these figures are dropping. Link: TOI
2. The website has link to comprehensive policy documents defining the goals and objective per type of facilities. These are huge documents and as usual there is no Policy Brief.
3. This is a self assessment. Please take the numbers with a pinch of salt. (Most in this forum know how self appraisals are done in India)
4. It is difficult to ascertain whether any WHO guidelines are followed in this assessment or whether WHO is also treated as 'foreign hand' nowadays.
5. In spite of present dispensation's data phobia, this project is live and kicking with usual tall claims like "Goal to make 70,000 facilities score more than 80% in first 100 days"
6. This is an on going survey with live dashboard, so watch this if you are interested.

[v1p3r]

I think our (lack of) understanding of socio-economic theories and realities are weighing us down. They weigh us down both when we vote, and when we comment on this forum.

We choose to sermonize about helping those less fortunate while patting ourselves on the back for doing the bare minimum. We extoll the virtues of government schools and hospitals while we immigrate in search of better futures. Our words don't match our actions.

When it comes to actual economics, I came across this lovely paragraph. Armies of analysts – on the Left and Right ends of the ideological spectrum – have been torturing themselves with the puzzle, why if GDP is growing rapidly are wages not growing (the left-leaning ask) and why is foreign investment so anaemic (the right-leaning ask). All the while, the stark answer is that the GDP growth is fake. There is no puzzle.

This is the source, written by a well-respected economist. He has more economic chops than most global governments. I am not interested in political debates and jingoism, so please don't @ me. I would rather listen to a cynic and critic and improve, than indulge in make-believe as people starve.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

....written by a well-respected economist. He has more economic chops than most global governments.

I just have an opinion on this one line, and it is not up for debate .

In fields like economics, i.e. which are not hard sciences, I have more respect for politicians and leaders who have their ear to the ground and have a skin in the game.

Governments, Presidents, prime ministers, chief ministers, i.e. leaders in a democracy have to face the electorate every 4/5 years and/or are judged by history. Everyone remembers Roosevelt, Reagan, Thatcher, Lee Kuan Yew, Deng Xiaoping, Mao, Stalin etc. None of them have an economics degree but they influenced their countries' direction, either positively or negatively.

Economists in academia, are worse since they only have to justify their opinions to fellow academics (who probably already share the same ideology).

[m8002?]

This will be my last post on the condition of schools and hospitals.

Originally Posted by NomadSK

The primary schools are where the basic education is imparted to the kids at some of them are at the location where you can't even imagine to tread and no basic amenities, at some locations those schools are run in tents, but more important is to have something to start with. I won't call them scrap, but more of a necessity, people from that lower section of the society doesn't have anything else to bank upon where education is concerned.

Just having a structure and calling it a school doesn't count. Other members have commented on the situation of the govt. schools. Question is if education is imparted in these schools and how many are willing to send the kids there. One of my cousins is a govt. teacher in Pondicherry. She was posted to a school 30 kms away from town. A rural area but not middle of nowhere. You wont believe the situation there.
1. The school has 4 teachers and a Principal. Three male teachers dont turn up even once a week. The Principal comes most days and leaves after lunch.
2. The Principal cant complain or take action on the erring teachers.
3. The kids are so poor that 7-8 year old kids come to school with plastic covers to take rice back home for their younger siblings. Thats the only meal the younger siblings have.
4. Anyone who has some income go the private school in the small town nearby - atleast teachers come and teach something. And parents can question the school if teachers dont turn up.
Except for the few govt. schools in the town/city wards, most govt. schools outside the town limits are in the same fate as per her. i would believe what she says rather than some stats released by the govt. saying govt. schools are great. If you have first hand experience of 90% govt. being great, please share.

Just to add, this is in TN/Pondicherry, having one of the highest social indicators in India as far has public health and education is concerned. So you can imagine how things will be in the "poorer" states.

Originally Posted by NomadSK

I would have send my kid to a KV anyway over any private institution, just because of the diversity of the kids and the grounded families where they come from.

Even I would love to send my kid to a KV. Do you even know what are the chances for a civilian's kid to get in? Forget civilians. My cousin who is an ex-airforce personnel, couldn't get admission for his son at the KV in his hometown when he moved there after VRS from the services.

[Fuldagap]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Everyone remembers Roosevelt, Reagan, Thatcher, Lee Kuan Yew, Deng Xiaoping, Mao, Stalin etc. None of them have an economics degree but they influenced their countries' direction, either positively or negatively.

Economists in academia, are worse since they only have to justify their opinions to fellow academics (who probably already share the same ideology).

Not trying to counter or debate. But incidentally, the names, big names mentioned by you have had top notch careers prior to which they had had extensive education in top institutions or military background or strategy training of some sort. Some even studied economics brilliantly. Some of them travelled the world since childhood/teenage and picked up a lot of experience from a variety of societies and departments.

Our last PM was a world class economist/leader. The results of his 10 year tenure are open to judgment.

Originally Posted by m8002?

Even I would love to send my kid to a KV. Do you even know what are the chances for a civilian's kid to get in? Forget civilians. My cousin who is an ex-airforce personnel, couldn't get admission for his son at the KV in his hometown when he moved there after VRS from the services.

That is why it is futile to compare govt schools in the major part of the country to top govt schools in places like Delhi.

Call it luck, fate or whatever one wishes to, a child from the rural backdrop studying in a govt school, lands up in a good college or career only rarely. Yes we get top performers in various fields now and then with govt school background, but i dont think we can give the credit to his/her school.

[hot_wheels]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Did they? Karl Marx created Communism as an antidote to Capitalism. They can only follow full-fledged socialism.

No system in this world is 100% communist or capitalist. Absolutes and binaries exist only in fiction and academia, not the real world. However, the general trajectory of countries that adopted communism is a downward spiral. The Chinese government, though communist in principle, circumvented its limitations by adopting some capitalist practices and morphed into a state-controlled communo-capitalist chimera which worked wonders in terms of industrialization and wealth generation. For all the wealth China generated through capitalism, its citizens still don't have basic individual freedoms or property (land) rights (which are some of the central tenets of capitalism).

India, as a similarly humongous polity with a long culture and history, will also find a unique way to achieve prosperity. However, unlike China, our country started with a liberal democratic foundation, which IMO will bode well in the long term. Whether we will ever be able to match China or the US is irrelevant. What matters is an expansion of the middle class and the elimination of abject poverty. The rich can eat their cake and drink champagne.

The only thing that matters in development economics is to continue to industrialize forever. The role of the entrepreneurs is to generate wealth at the top, and the government's to use that wealth to uplift the bottom. The middle will take care of itself. A capitalist society is always rich but never equal, and communism is poverty for all.

[Porsche306]

In India, middle class is squeezed by the Government/political parties in every way to please their vote bank (below middle class) and supporters (rich patrons). What middle class does not understand is that it is their vote which decides which party comes to power. Yet middle class just cribs and does not do anything to force the politicians to take notice of them. Only thing middle class gets from the politicians is control of onion prices. That's it. Idiots class.

With all the welfare schemes, poor are incentivised to stay poor. The rich are encouraged to grow richer so that they can provide jobs to middle class only for the government to extract 4-5 months of earnings in the form of taxes.

In these times, it is better to be poor or rich not in between. The middle class has two choices to become poorer or get richer or get politically active.

[sukhbirST]

Down south where ,I lived major part of my life , education is seen as the gateway to move up the ladder. Population has been under control and is playing an important role. Was shocked to see the opposite in states as you move up. Even today 3 kids and more is common amongst the lower class. Time we call a spade a spade.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Porsche306

With all the welfare schemes, poor are incentivised to stay poor.

Seriously, you think the poor like being poor and prefare welfare over having a decent job and income?

Even the most right wing politicians in the west have put that ridiculous notion to rest 20 years ago.

Jeroen

[Porsche306]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Seriously, you think the poor like being poor and prefare welfare over having a decent job and income?

Even the most right wing politicians in the west have put that ridiculous notion to rest 20 years ago.

Jeroen

Obviously nobody wants to be poor. Everybody strives to improve their standard of living. My point is that Governments' duty is to create opportunities, environment and support systems to help the under privileged to improve their lives. Nowadays, Governments, instead of creating the opportunities, are doling out freebies. Without the opportunities, the poor have no means to grow financially. They are left with freebies only.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by hot_wheels

No system in this world is 100% communist or capitalist. Absolutes and binaries exist only in fiction and academia, not the real world.

I hope you mean socialism or capitalism. But I have been saying that for a long time, more than once as I recall. Funny you are repeating that back to me.

Originally Posted by Samurai

There are no pure capitalist or pure socialist economies. They are always a combination of capitalism and socialism.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Just like there is no perfect black body, there is no example of absolute socialism or capitalism either. Like the perfect black body, theoretical definitions of socialism or capitalism helps us identify examples that are close enough.

On the political spectrum, we have communism and democracy. And on the economics spectrum, we have socialism and capitalism.

But just like in cooking recipes, you can't mix anything with anything. Communism's goal is to remove class system, so it needs socialism to meet that goal. Capitalism creates class system, you know, billionaires at one extreme and poor people at the other extreme. This is exactly what Karl Marx hoped to destroy. So, communism can't use capitalism, that would be an oxymoron. That is why China gave up communism and simply became a one-party dictatorship so that they can use capitalism with some sprinkling of socialism.

Same story with Vietnam who won their fight to have a communist government, and somehow held on to their communist principles until the veterans of that fight stayed in power. At the turn of the century, they too gave up on communist ideals for which they fought so bitterly with USA.

Details from an old Guardian article.

For a while, the socialist factions still had enough political muscle to direct the new capitalist vehicle. Three times during the late 1990s, the World Bank offered extra loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars if Vietnam would agree to sell its state-owned companies and cut its trade tariffs. Each deal was rejected.

But from 2000, the rate of change accelerated and the political balance shifted. Reflecting persistent pressure from international donors and foreign investors, Vietnam now approved the sale of its state-owned companies. It also struck a trade deal with the US, and finally hit a peak in 2006 when it was given membership of the World Trade Organisation, which meant it could reap yet more foreign investment and aid. Three decades after the communists emerged as victors in the war, it was now a fully integrated member of the globalised capitalist economy. The west had won after all.

Meanwhile democracies have lot more flexibility, they can use pure capitalism (pre-1933 USA) or a mix of socialism and capitalism to different degrees. Which is what most democratic countries follow today.

But it doesn't mean democracy and capitalism are made for each other either. They are not natural partners. Have mentioned this in 2019:

Originally Posted by Samurai

I'll give an argument from right and the left. Both agree one is bad for the other.

Here is a capitalistic economist arguing in a Forbes article that democracy is bad for capitalism.

Here is a professor of social and economic policy arguing in Foreign Policy article saying capitalism is bad for democracy.

[PZK]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Seriously, you think the poor like being poor and prefare welfare over having a decent job and income?

Even the most right wing politicians in the west have put that ridiculous notion to rest 20 years ago.

Jeroen

I think there is nuance to that argument made by Porche306

We see this happening in the USA every single day, where the homeless have no incentive to join the workforce. In San Francisco where they have huge incentives designed to reduce/decrease the homeless problem but as an end result it has led to even more homeless people flocking to SFO. Read: Cobra Effect

In my own village in Haryana, India where a large number of daily wage workers stopped working because they have enough to live on government incentives. All they do is play cards and drink local alcohol.

[PZK]

The easiest explanation of how the economic engine works was explained by Ray Dalio in

this

video.