[Arnab]

Originally Posted by PoorFan
Original comment was "it has been steadily rising after the advent of liberalization and globalization". And my stand is ... rising inequality is not only because of globalization but also because of other variables.

Sure. The author thinks there's a major correlation between the advent of liberalization and globalization in India and the rising inequality in the country. Major enough to single them out. You think the author is implying direct causality. But I don't think he is doing that. And yes, there are more variables that can contribute to the rising inequality.

I was also talking about short-term inequality ( that's why in my previous post I said "considering the huge / rapid change in globe last couple of decades" ), and by inequality I meant income & wealth.

Well, I am considering long-term inequality.

I have no problem to accept that, though I was not aware of that detail, but I said that 'proper distribution policy may have room for develop'. And those variables surely affect this Economic inequality too.

But proper distribution policy not quite a measurable quantity as assets and incomes. But Economic inequality is generally defined in terms of assets and incomes, and it makes sense to keep it simple like that.

Yes, but drastic change in currency and price should be taken in consideration too, compare to the old days. And yes I think this ( inequality ) has increased in India ... wait ... not only India I think.

I am sure it has all been taken into consideration.

Not sure ... perhaps her needs during this high growth got changed compare to the scale of old days, such as national security, power & other resource development, infrastructure development, science and technology development, Education development and may be many more. It's not realistic to expect a steady 'previous unequal manner' since so many variables that get changed and get prefered time to time.

Sure. That was a theoretical possibility. Economy is always in a flux, nothing's constant.

For those reason I said earlier, increasing inequality can not be described simply as "distributed MORE unequally than in the previous unequal manner".

Oh yes it certainly can. That's how it's defined in the discipline of Economics. Ceteris Paribus of course.

Would have or would have not decreased, but they might have short coming in other developments, if they had to put high priority on inequality.

Why "would not"? The way economic inequality is defined, if things are distributed in a more equal manner, inequality diminishes, simple.

You are right that economic factors are tied to each other and one affects the other in various manners, but when I am presenting these theoretical scenarios, I am assuming "all other factors are unchanged". Otherwise it's hard to build ANY theoretical argument in Economics. In economics they metion the latin term "ceteris paribus" to mean this.

IMPOV, it's not 'vague and out of scope', and I feel lucky since your 'no comment' helped me not to explain further.

I think it was pretty vague and out of scope. So I will not continue on that.

Yes, on the right track in achieving so many goals in ( Indian ) priority basis, not only for poverty alleviation. And Yes, those are 'not quite directly correlated to poverty alleviation', that's why the term 'in a long run' or 'consider after 15 years' came to this discussion I think.

And along with that came into the discussion the questions about what someone means by "in the long run" and why "consider after 15 years"? No satisfactory answers were given.

Though I believe inequality has risen over the decades, but I doubt globalization and high growth rate is only the reason,

Well, nobody has called high growth rate or globalization as the only cause of poverty. So I think you misread something somewhere?

rather I believe it will help India in a long run to reduce poverty and inequality.

It's very hopeful of you to "believe" that, but the stats say otherwise.

If the long run is defined as 15 years starting right now, most of the poor people in India currently aged above 40 will die as poor persons before seeing any decrease in inequality.

Since we are already in the second decade of India's economic growth, we can assume that a generation of poor people has already died while remaining in poverty AND their next generation is currently living in a more unequal India.