[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

Isn't economic migration indirectly through policies of the govt in places where they migrate to ?

Within US, there apparently is large scale migration going on from Blue states (Democrat ruled) to Red states (Republican ruled) as per this New York Time opinion piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUheZQvTckM&t=32s

While Nobel-prize winning economists endorse Kamala Harris (here and here), ordinary Americans are voting with their feet, moving to states where there are better opportunities. Shows how far removed these 'elite' economists are from ground reality.

[PreludeSH]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Within US, there apparently is large scale migration going on from Blue states (Democrat ruled) to Red states (Republican ruled) as per this New York Time opinion piece:

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=tUheZQvTckM&t=32s

While Nobel-prize winning economists endorse Kamala Harris (here and here), ordinary Americans are voting with their feet, moving to states where there are better opportunities. Shows how far removed these 'elite' economists are from ground reality.

Its due to affordability and maybe lower state taxes. Also, bigger land area resulting in lower land costs.

In India we have reverse, states that are receiving migration are marked to lose seats in Parliament

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

Its due to affordability and maybe lower state taxes. Also, bigger land area resulting in lower land costs.

In India we have reverse, states that are receiving migration are marked to lose seats in Parliament

USA too has Electoral College per state (total 538 electors), which is based on number of Representatives of each state, which in turn is based on population.

Nothing extraordinary in India.

[PreludeSH]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

USA too has Electoral College per state (total 538 electors), which is based on number of Representatives of each state, which in turn is based on population.

Nothing extraordinary in India.

In India, the states which are seeing migration into (karnataka, TN, Kerela, AP/Telangana) are losing parliament seats. In US the new Red states are gaining seats due to migration. That is the difference I was pointing to.

Not sure why migration in India is not adding more numbers population wise to these southern states. Is it because they are not moving their voting to new states ? To continue getting social benefits in their original states ?

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

...Not sure why migration in India is not adding more numbers population wise to these southern states. Is it because they are not moving their voting to new states ? To continue getting social benefits in their original states ?

Most folks seldom create their voter ID cards post migration.

Our friends have been living in Bengaluru since 2011. Have three properties here but never created their voter ID card. I pushed them for it, and they voted for the first time in Bengaluru during the recent general elections of 2024. This is for permanent residents. Imagine the white-collar worker, who thinks they might move to another city tomorrow.

Voter apathy.

[krrisdrive]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

In India, the states which are seeing migration into (karnataka, TN, Kerela, AP/Telangana) are losing parliament seats. In US the new Red states are gaining seats due to migration. That is the difference I was pointing to.

Not sure why migration in India is not adding more numbers population wise to these southern states. Is it because they are not moving their voting to new states ? To continue getting social benefits in their original states ?

I think majority of migration in India is in construction sector which is temporary in job nature. Migrants move to another place or native once work is completed. I even see migrants move in middle of work to native to till their land (however small it is) for Kharif season. Also Identity governance (Aadhar, PAN, Voters ID, PDI Card etc. etc.) is in nascent stage in India, making migrant's life miserable.

What makes the upcoming delimitation highly debatable is that both Lok sabha and Rajya sabha seats are based on population, ultimately making this as a 'numbers' game!

[binand]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Most folks seldom create their voter ID cards post migration... Voter apathy.

First, it is updating one's entry in the electoral roll. Voter ID like all other ID needs to be created only once in a lifetime.

And I don't think voter apathy explains it completely. Many of these people are fully invested in the politics of their origin location; they maintain their entries in the origin location's electoral rolls and travel there to register their vote for every election.

I find it a lot farcical that Malayalees who have been living in Chennai or Mumbai for generations taking highly invested sides of the LDF-UDF dichotomy that has been the defining feature of my home state's politics for decades now. Something that is a complete anachronism outside the state and has zero relevance to these people's lives.

[PreludeSH]

While ago I had read this article that details some aspects of population/economics

https://www.theindiaforum.in/economy...igration-india

Lately the kind of industries being setup need skilled workers. They are also happening in already developed states

[vaibhav_a_a]

With all the recent talk of tariffs, I was reminded of this Russel Napier interview I read. A very memorable term (that he has probably coined) - National Capitalism. i.e. your government tells you where to invest your capital - at least in which market. In India, with the number of hoops you need to jump as a middle class person, this is somewhat true already but can be more true in future. He argues it is about to get there in other, developed countries.

https://themarket.ch/interview/russe...alism-ld.12718

[akhil_007]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

What you and Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao achieved in 1991 of changing the direction and thinking of the country has not been repeated since

Originally Posted by Samurai

the Janata Party government led by Chandra Shekhar was leading us nowhere.

That savior was none other than Dr.Manmohan Singh.

Thank you for your insightful posts. Would you please elaborate a bit more on this, specifically on Janata Party contributions or lack of, and opening up of economy post PVN and Dr.Manmohan Singh?

There are few opinions stating that Janata Party ushered in the economic reforms. It would be good to hear from both of you basis your experience at that point of time.

Thanks in advance

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by akhil_007

There are few opinions stating that Janata Party ushered in the economic reforms.

Hmm, I am not sure what they were talking about. Now when I think about it, I am not really sure what Janata Party stood for. BTW, I always voted for Janata Party in the 20th century because they were against Congress. After the emergency, many households made it a tradition to vote against Congress in every election, that included mine.

When Kuwait was invaded, India had a minority government and they were clueless about how to respond to such a major international event. They didn't want to make Iraq angry.

Here is a good source on the events then: https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/2760069

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by akhil_007

Thank you for your insightful posts. Would you please elaborate a bit more on this, specifically on Janata Party contributions or lack of, and opening up of economy post PVN and Dr.Manmohan Singh?

There are few opinions stating that Janata Party ushered in the economic reforms. It would be good to hear from both of you basis your experience at that point of time.

Thanks in advance

I am presuming this is a genuine question and not a social media trolling.

The Janata Govt as it was formed in circa 1977 was a breath of fresh air for India and under JP Narayan's leadership broke the monopoly of the Congress and showed us all what democracy is. In 1977 and 1978, for a brief 2 years it genuinely brought better Government to the nation. But its internal squabbling, led by Charan Singh, and exploited by Indira Gandhi, caused its pre-mature demise in 1979. By 1989 it was a shell of its original self with little by way of power or credibility.

The reforms initiated in June-July 1991 were the brainchild jointly of Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao and Dr Man Mohan Singh. It was Rao, also an intellectual, and very well read man, who provided the encouragement and political aircover to Dr MMS to plunge in bravely with the reforms and opening up of the economy and unshackling of the license raj. Dr MMS worked at the operative level and Narasimha Rao at the air cover level driving/cajoling/forcing change of mindsets in a hidebound bureaucracy that loved its power to approve and cancel and politicos who loved the milking the old system provided.

I lived through those days and I don't recall any role or contribution of the by then dying Janata Party to this historic opening of the economy. The regional parties we see today bearing the name Janata have little to do with what JP Narayan forged together in the dark days of 1976-1977. No reform at that scale has been done ever since and now we have a new license raj in other guises but that discussion is beyond the scope of Team BHP rules.

[krrisdrive]

Originally Posted by akhil_007

There are few opinions stating that Janata Party ushered in the economic reforms.

Most probably they are talking about 1989 Janata Dal government headed by VP Singh. His Malaysia tour and the subsequent policy prescription document by Montek Singh - colloquially referred as M document - definitely seeded 1991 reforms. Even the previous Rajiv government started trials especially focusing on IT.

Of course Dr. Singh, Mrs & Mr. Ahluwalia and the likes were at North Block quite some time. They were waiting for the opportune time and a political backer, which came in the form of balance of payment crisis and PV Narishma Rao respectively.

The icing on the cake was Vajpayee government which not only carried the reforms forward but also added critical ingredients like road infra, SEZ to name a few to the mix even though they are ideologically opposed.

So essentially, the 1990s liberalization project was an amalgamation of good intended intellectual led reforms cutting across party lines.

[am1m]

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/india-m...e-ndtv_opinion

Was reading this article and had some questions that might seem naive (apologies in advance).

Is rapid population growth the only way to ensure that a country will have a growing economy? Does a robust economy in such situations necessarily mean the overall GDP grows, but individual families have a worse quality of life?

I have no deep understanding about economics, but speaking about the families I see around me, I think as families, we seem to have a worse quality of life than our parents did, despite working harder and making a lot more money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm old enough to remember when job prospects were bleak for young grads. People like me have benefited immensely from the country's economic growth. But at some point, all that revenue should translate into better social security and facilities, surely? Sure I can afford a lot more gadgets, bigger cars, and international vacations, things that were unthinkable when I was a child. But a single working parent in most of our families growing up was enough to send 2 kids to good schools and colleges, build a house and retire peacefully. Today even with both parents working hard, the same neighborhoods and schools seem much, much harder to attain. If the quality of life doesn't seem to be getting better, why would anyone bat for increased population growth as a means to drive a country's economic growth? Or is the alternative a lot worse? Economic stagnation? (Thanks in advance for any explanations.)

[DigitalOne]

A must-watch special address by Javier Milei, President of Argentina, at Davos 2025.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATNbGD37Dz0

(I watched at 1.25x speed; easier to consume.)

• President Javier Milei tells Davos that Argentina is an "example of a new way of doing politics, which is about telling people the truth to their faces".

• He says the "winds of change are blowing in the West" and calls for a cure to the "mental virus of woke ideology" that has "colonized institutions".

• Milei urges the world to "embrace the last proven thesis of economic and social success" and the "ideas of freedom", and go back to libertarianism.

Full text of the speech here.