Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PoorFan
No it's not. Bush is not an Iraqi whereas Indian people on their own making the policy, Bush forced the plan of democracy whereas Indian people implementing their plan on their own will ( or wish ), Iraqi people getting killed / destruct by war whereas Indian economist and politicians are working hard for their country growth, which may helping ( someway ) increase 'inequality'. Is it comparable in term of 'forget' between Iraqi people killing / destruction and 'inequality' in Indian society may caused by higher growth or globalization?
IMO, 15 years or not, poverty, as well as inequality is bound decrease in a long run, as long as economy grows, and proper distribution policy has to be taken to make it fast. India is in right track or not in term of 'proper distribution policy' may be debateable. But If african nations had at least half of Indian or Chinese growth in economy, more than half of worlds poverty and inequality may have decreased I guess.
|
You are disillusioned my friend. Indian people are not implementing their plan on their own will fully. They are a part of a global economy, hence they are more vulnerable to what other people want. Not to mention WB and IMF and their SAPs.
In the long run this inequality does not have to decrease. Proper distribution policies, according to neoclassicals hinder growth rate and will not be implemented. ALso, by transfering money from the rich to the poor you are taking away teir digninty, the only thing they have. It gets compicated. (Read Sens and yunus's work). A well planned economic growth process can achieve both. After all the WB nw realises taht economic equality actually helps growth.
FInally, AFrica does not have a lot of people. China and India do. So, they contain most of the worlds poor. Higher growth rates in Africa will not reduce half of worlds povety