"Did we do the right thing?"

[layperson]

Originally Posted by Arnab
What do you mean by "normal"? You sound very certain about this "normalcy". Can you provide me some comparative statistical stuff on this?

One solid economic statistic re: this is the Gini Coefficient. Anybody who has taken a course on Public Finance (I have) knows about this statistic.



Another excerpt from: http://iecolumnists.expressindia.com...ntent_id=83241

Emphasis mine.

I am certain because I know what I am talking about. You are asking for comparative statistical figures. Bro, the information in your post only proves what I was saying in my post. I said since India is a developing country and it is growing, part of the growth process is greater inequality in wealth. The Gini coefiicient shows my case since it has been rising thus showing the greater inequality of wealth. I do not what you were trying to debate here? Before you jump on me for not getting your point of debate, remember I told you my english is horrible so spare me and try explaining again.

The point you missed in my post along with most others who replied is that I have said that a more concrete comment can be made after 15 years on India's success against alleviating poverty. This is because Growth will bring in increased inequality. What matters is proper government policies to make sure that income is redistributed more evenly but that is time consuming and you wont be able to see the effect instantly which is why the 15 year time period mention in my post. One very simple thing that a government can do is try and move India towards a more welfare state which means Progressive rates of taxation and more social and unemployment benefits, pension plans etc for the poor. This would redistrubute the income from the increased growth. Moreover have you heard about the "trickle down" effect. Whenever you have the rich people getting richer that means they are getting richer through more industries and more business. This would improve India's unemployment rate, literacy rate as someone else mentioned which are important factors in alleviating poverty. How? Creation of more employment opportunities through new industries would mean lesser poor people, literacy rate increasing would mean these industries would be run using domestic labour and not imported foreign labour. All I am saying is so far India is going in the right direction. It is growing at a rate of 10% per annum which is second to only China. During growth rich people get richer because they are the section who can take advantage of the boom as poorer people do not have the resources to take advantage of it. The one thing I said is an indicator of India will also do a good job of poverty alleviation is because they have a burgeoning middle class which is essential for the equality of income. Now if you think this is not right then yes we will differ in our opinion.

BBGUN, I read the the growth rates in DS newspaper reports last year plus in lots of economics books. I know India and China are having double digit growths and India is trailing behind China on this. Sadly I am way too lazy to go through the internet to provide you with a link. If you do a search on google on INdia's growth rate you might come up with a figures close to 10 % and China's might be close to 12%.

[Arnab]

I am not going to comment on the rest of your post because it's not I am interested at. But:

This is because Growth will bring in increased inequality. What matters is proper government policies to make sure that income is redistributed more evenly but that is time consuming and you wont be able to see the effect instantly which is why the 15 year time period mention in my post.

Where do you get this magic figure of 15 years? And when do you start counting the years? India's economy has been growing for about two decades now, and the inequality has become only larger.

So, what is the statistical basis of your magic number of 15 and what is the starting point of this period where inequality starts to shrink? And do mention if some comparative survey on this has been done in the developing countries.

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by Arnab
Where do you get this magic figure of 15 years? And when do you start counting the years? India's economy has been growing for about two decades now, and the inequality has become only larger.

Agreed

[layperson]

Originally Posted by Arnab
I am not going to comment on the rest of your post because it's not I am interested at. But:



Where do you get this magic figure of 15 years? And when do you start counting the years? India's economy has been growing for about two decades now, and the inequality has become only larger.

So, what is the statistical basis of your magic number of 15 and what is the starting point of this period where inequality starts to shrink? And do mention if some comparative survey on this has been done in the developing countries.

15 years is an arbitrary random number nothing that is specified in any books. I could have said in the long run but then people would have asked me how long is the long run. Regarding when to start counting, this would also be a perspective year. There is nothing in the books that say you should start counting this many years from this time onwards. Personally, I would say the year from when India started to grow at over 6 percent you can start "counting". In the "long run" if you do not see any improvement in the poverty line in India then you can say they failed. Example being Brazil. They had inequality of growth but the growth was not sustainable which is why they are in their current position.

I am not aware of any such survey's but I am sure there has been comparative surveys done by researchers. Since I personally do not know of any I cannot give you any link.

I have a question for you now. You and the rest have been saying the inequality in India has been getting larger and larger and the poor are getting poorer. Does this mean you do not have the same opinion as me that India's middle class is getting bigger and bigger ? I think you dont because then you wouldnt keep saying this because a growing middle class would indicate a step in the right direction for poverty alleviation, no ? Do you have any statistic that show that the percentage of the population under the poverty line has been increasing in India? I will provide you with a more arguable scenario rather than facts and numbers ( since I am too lazy to research) about why I think India's middle class is growing, % of pop. under poverty line is decreasing. If you look at the Indian car market, you will see that a lot of foreign companies have invested in manufacturing units there. If as you guys are saying rich people getting richer and poor getting poorer then why would you think those car manufacturers would go to open plants in India. Those plants cater to the domestic market first and then exports from India to neighboring countries. The cars that they are producing are not the ones rich people would drive but ones that cater to the middle class. Rich people can buy cars even if there were no foreign manufacturers in India. They would just pay the high tax rate and import the car they want. Does the Indian car market give you the idea that I have or otherwise?

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
15 years is an arbitrary random number nothing that is specified in any books. I could have said in the long run but then people would have asked me how long is the long run. Regarding when to start counting, this would also be a perspective year. There is nothing in the books that say you should start counting this many years from this time onwards. Personally, I would say the year from when India started to grow at over 6 percent you can start "counting". In the "long run" if you do not see any improvement in the poverty line in India then you can say they failed. Example being Brazil. They had inequality of growth but the growth was not sustainable which is why they are in their current position.

But that's not exactly a good argument. It's kinda like Bush saying Iraq will be better off in the long run but he doesn't know when that is really going to happen and in the meantime, Iraq burns despite having removed a tyrant like Saddam. If Iraqis become more democratic and prosperous say in 2015, will you forget all the Iraqis killed inthe meantime and give Bush credit for the eventual prosperity? I think it's a good analogy to your line of argument here.

I have a question for you now. You and the rest have been saying the inequality in India has been getting larger and larger

Yes, statistically that's been proven to be true.

and the poor are getting poorer.

Well, not on absolute terms. I guess the average real income of the poor might have increased. But comparatively against the rich, yes, the poor in India should feel poorer now.

Does this mean you do not have the same opinion as me that India's middle class is getting bigger and bigger?

That's a different thing. What do you consider middle class? Define middle class. Which income bracket do they fall into?

I think you dont because then you wouldnt keep saying this because a growing middle class would indicate a step in the right direction for poverty alleviation, no?

Depends. Define middle class first.

Do you have any statistic that show that the percentage of the population under the poverty line has been increasing in India?

Well, in terms of Gini coeff, we are talking about relative poverty here. Not the absolute poverty that the poverty line indicates.

I will provide you with a more arguable scenario rather than facts and numbers ( since I am too lazy to research) about why I think India's middle class is growing, % of pop. under poverty line is decreasing.

I have found an interesting link re: this:

http://gamma.nic.fi/~otammile/povindia.htm

[layperson]

Originally Posted by Arnab
But that's not exactly a good argument. It's kinda like Bush saying Iraq will be better off in the long run but he doesn't know when that is really going to happen and in the meantime, Iraq burns despite having removed a tyrant like Saddam. If Iraqis become more democratic and prosperous say in 2015, will you forget all the Iraqis killed inthe meantime and give Bush credit for the eventual prosperity? I think it's a good analogy to your line of argument here.



Yes, statistically that's been proven to be true.



Well, not on absolute terms. I guess the average real income of the poor might have increased. But comparatively against the rich, yes, the poor in India should feel poorer now.



That's a different thing. What do you consider middle class? Define middle class. Which income bracket do they fall into?



Depends. Define middle class first.



Well, in terms of Gini coeff, we are talking about relative poverty here. Not the absolute poverty that the poverty line indicates.



I have found an interesting link re: this:

http://gamma.nic.fi/~otammile/povindia.htm

Arnab bhai, I think you just nailed your own coffin !! You mentioned in your post you are talking about relative poverty and not about absolute poverty or better yet percentage of population under the poverty line. Whereas I am talking about the % of pop. under the poverty line. That is the norm for finding out if a country is going in the right direction in terms of poverty alleviation. I have said there will be inequality which is why relatively speaking the poor will be "poorer" compared to the rich because the the rich is getting richer at a faster rate than the poor.

The analogy you provided is not suitable for my post because I did not say that after 15 years India will be better off in terms of poverty alleviation. I said, after 15 years one can make a more concrete statement about India's success against poverty alleviation. What I said is I think personally India is on the right track currently and I have said why I think so. >the emerging middle class. Now you have asked me to define middle class, in that case we need to define poor and rich as well because those can be relative terms as well. To a poor person like me rich can mean much less relative income compared to a richer person in BC who earns 150 grand annually.

But this kind of argument is pointless because we would be going in circles then. But just for arguments sake middle class is a family of 4 whose income is between Rs.25000-Rs 70000. This is also an arbitrary range and middle class income is not defined anywhere in any books I have read so far. However middle class effectively means the working class of people who are not the entrepreneur nor the unskilled labourers. That would mean skilled labour with relatively "middle" income will fall under middle class.

However, you have not answered what you think of the Indian car market example I gave to you to show the emergence of the Indian middle class? That in itself will solve our debate because if you agree then we are on the same page and if you disagree then I would see the logics you provide. If I can counter that then I will, otherwise we will have to remain happy being on different pages on one more issue. The only way I see you countering that is by defining middle class in such a way that it would seem that the cars currently being produced is not for the middle income group but then again I have small idea how to counter that as well ( my last ditch effort ).

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
Arnab bhai, I think you just nailed your own coffin !! You mentioned in your post you are talking about relative poverty and not about absolute poverty or better yet percentage of population under the poverty line. Whereas I am talking about the % of pop. under the poverty line. That is the norm for finding out if a country is going in the right direction in terms of poverty alleviation. I have said there will be inequality which is why relatively speaking the poor will be "poorer" compared to the rich because the the rich is getting richer at a faster rate than the poor.

The analogy you provided is not suitable for my post because I did not say that after 15 years India will be better off in terms of poverty alleviation. I said, after 15 years one can make a more concrete statement about India's success against poverty alleviation. What I said is I think personally India is on the right track currently and I have said why I think so. >the emerging middle class. Now you have asked me to define middle class, in that case we need to define poor and rich as well because those can be relative terms as well. To a poor person like me rich can mean much less relative income compared to a richer person in BC who earns 150 grand annually.

But this kind of argument is pointless because we would be going in circles then. But just for arguments sake middle class is a family of 4 whose income is between Rs.25000-Rs 70000. This is also an arbitrary range and middle class income is not defined anywhere in any books I have read so far. However middle class effectively means the working class of people who are not the entrepreneur nor the unskilled labourers. That would mean skilled labour with relatively "middle" income will fall under middle class.

However, you have not answered what you think of the Indian car market example I gave to you to show the emergence of the Indian middle class? That in itself will solve our debate because if you agree then we are on the same page and if you disagree then I would see the logics you provide. If I can counter that then I will, otherwise we will have to remain happy being on different pages on one more issue. The only way I see you countering that is by defining middle class in such a way that it would seem that the cars currently being produced is not for the middle income group but then again I have small idea how to counter that as well ( my last ditch effort ).

Okay. Here is the neoclassical argument for economic growth.
Grow at all cost. Increase inequality, destroy the environment. Do whatever it takes to to grow to achieve a high growth rate. In th elong run, when the country is rich enuf money will trickle down and people will happily live ever after.....
This is pretty much what you are saying and yes India is showing exactly what neoclassical economic arguments would predict. How long is long term, what is the magnitude of inequality increase that is irrelevent.
Here is an example of why I think this is not the right way. In the 2004 elections in the most improved state in INDIA under the BJP(the one where Bangalore is in) people ousted the government, showing that high levels of growth was nt the right way. It was just not that state, but the whole of India as well. Showing India was not going the right way.
I can go on and on and on....

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
Arnab bhai, I think you just nailed your own coffin !!

Easy, grasshopper.

You mentioned in your post you are talking about relative poverty and not about absolute poverty or better yet percentage of population under the poverty line.

No, I mentioned that if we think in terms of Gini Coefficient, we are talking about relative poverty.

Whereas I am talking about the % of pop. under the poverty line. That is the norm for finding out if a country is going in the right direction in terms of poverty alleviation.

I don't know of any "norms" like that. "Poverty lines" are different for different countries, usually set and adjusted by their governments using different standards. And it appears from the last link I provided that what is the current definition of poverty line in India is sketchy. The % of current Indians living below the poverty line, depending on how one defines the line, may be less or more than the previous %.

I have said there will be inequality which is why relatively speaking the poor will be "poorer" compared to the rich because the the rich is getting richer at a faster rate than the poor.

Sure. I didn't disagree with that. What I am curious about was what makes you think this inequality will start to wane, i.e., the relative % of poor people will shrink.

The analogy you provided is not suitable for my post because I did not say that after 15 years India will be better off in terms of poverty alleviation. I said, after 15 years one can make a more concrete statement about India's success against poverty alleviation. What I said is I think personally India is on the right track currently and I have said why I think so. >the emerging middle class.

I am sorry, but what is the difference between "better off in terms of poverty alleviation" and "on the right track in poverty alleviation"? If you are on the right track, it means you will be better off.

Now you have asked me to define middle class, in that case we need to define poor and rich as well because those can be relative terms as well. To a poor person like me rich can mean much less relative income compared to a richer person in BC who earns 150 grand annually.

Sure, but on a whole, you can certainly define a class in the society called middle class based on some economic statistic. Give it a shot.

But this kind of argument is pointless because we would be going in circles then.

Obviously. I don't know why you brought up this interpretation of middle class in the first place.

But just for arguments sake middle class is a family of 4 whose income is between Rs.25000-Rs 70000. This is also an arbitrary range and middle class income is not defined anywhere in any books I have read so far.

It's a pretty arbitrary number. You have defined middle class using family income. let's see what your argument using this number is.

However middle class effectively means the working class of people who are not the entrepreneur nor the unskilled labourers. That would mean skilled labour with relatively "middle" income will fall under middle class.

I don't see any argument involving the previous definition of middle class you set up. You have now introduced new, somewhat vague, definitions of middle class, in terms of the nature of their economic work (i.e., skilled/unskilled, entrepreneur/non-entrepreneur, etc.).

However, you have not answered what you think of the Indian car market example I gave to you to show the emergence of the Indian middle class? That in itself will solve our debate because if you agree then we are on the same page and if you disagree then I would see the logics you provide. If I can counter that then I will, otherwise we will have to remain happy being on different pages on one more issue. The only way I see you countering that is by defining middle class in such a way that it would seem that the cars currently being produced is not for the middle income group but then again I have small idea how to counter that as well ( my last ditch effort ).

Sure. Here you are defining the middle class in terms of the user base of the car market in India. But I think that would be a crude measure. If the rich are getting richer, and if car prices have gone down or remained the same in real terms, it's possible that nowadays, more "relatively rich" people, who are somewhat "less rich" than the "very rich" people in absolute terms, can afford to buy a car, which means the number of car owners will increase.

But would that say anything substantial about poverty alleviation? My guess is no.

[layperson]

Originally Posted by Arnab
Easy, grasshopper.



No, I mentioned that if we think in terms of Gini Coefficient, we are talking about relative poverty.



I don't know of any "norms" like that. "Poverty lines" are different for different countries, usually set and adjusted by their governments using different standards. And it appears from the last link I provided that what is the current definition of poverty line in India is sketchy. The % of current Indians living below the poverty line, depending on how one defines the line, may be less or more than the previous %.



Sure. I didn't disagree with that. What I am curious about was what makes you think this inequality will start to wane, i.e., the relative % of poor people will shrink.



I am sorry, but what is the difference between "better off in terms of poverty alleviation" and "on the right track in poverty alleviation"? If you are on the right track, it means you will be better off.



Sure, but on a whole, you can certainly define a class in the society called middle class based on some economic statistic. Give it a shot.



Obviously. I don't know why you brought up this interpretation of middle class in the first place.



It's a pretty arbitrary number. You have defined middle class using family income. let's see what your argument using this number is.



I don't see any argument involving the previous definition of middle class you set up. You have now introduced new, somewhat vague, definitions of middle class, in terms of the nature of their economic work (i.e., skilled/unskilled, entrepreneur/non-entrepreneur, etc.).



Sure. Here you are defining the middle class in terms of the user base of the car market in India. But I think that would be a crude measure. If the rich are getting richer, and if car prices have gone down or remained the same in real terms, it's possible that nowadays, more "relatively rich" people, who are somewhat "less rich" than the "very rich" people in absolute terms, can afford to buy a car, which means the number of car owners will increase.

But would that say anything substantial about poverty alleviation? My guess is no.

OK, first you say that you are not aware of any "norms" which define poverty alleviation as the decrease in the percentage of pop. under the poverty line. In that case what do the "learned" people like yourself mean when you speak of poverty alleviation? When the World Bank, IMF, governments of different countries talk about poverty alleviation what do they refer to ? Care to explain ? Yes there are different poverty lines for different countries, true and poverty is measured on different scales in different countries but how does that change the concept of poverty alleviation?

You are asking me what makes me think that the relative % of poor people will shrink. My point is not relative, my point is making a greater % of the pop go above the poverty line. The article you provided shows that with time a greater % of the pop. is crossing the poverty line which is exactly what I look for when thinking about poverty alleviation. Not out of some personal definition but the definition of poverty alleviation that everyone uses.

You say the range I have put forward is arbitrary. Obviously it is and I think I said so in my post as well. What is important is whether you agree with the arbitrary range or not. If not please suggest one yourself. I repeat once again there is no fixed or certain formula as such that can give you a range for the middle income in a country. When you say I added a new definition to middle class foregoing my previous range you must have misunderstood. In the definition I said, a class of skilled workers earning "middle" income and that "middle" income is the range I provided before. I hope you see the connection between the two now.

You ask for my argument for the range that I provided. It is based on the way I perceive the life in Bangladesh, the standard of living of people. We are talking about a topic that has to be based on some assumptions and it is impossible to come up with a factual number for the range as you should know very well too. My assumption is the way I perceive standard of living in Bangladesh. I think most people would agree that the income bracket I mentioned would fall in the middle class category. If you think otherwise please give me a range yourself.

Regarding the car market I expected better arguments from you. Your whole argument is based on the fact if car prices have gone down, but the point is car prices have not gone down. Moreover even if car prices do go down they dont change so much that a poor person in absolute term would be able to afford it. Cars in those part of the world are only affordable for middle income and higher income groups.Increase in the number of car owners would mean that either of those groups are getting bigger in number. Since the cars being manufactured now in India cater to the middle class I think we can conlcude that the middle class is getting bigger in India.

Ohh I wanted to ask one more thing, As I told you my english skills are relatively weak, what did you mean by "Easy Grasshopper". Eita kintu explain korte bhulben nah if you do reply to this post.

[layperson]

Finally, I know arnab bhai would never concede his position on the issue and I will not on mine. (he is way too stubborn to change his views and so am I)

Why dont one of the other distinguished learned member of BC come in and judge whose case makes more sense and declare one of us as the "winner". If I lose i will be gracious about it I promise.


Otherwise this would go on and on until my school reopens and I get busier with school work.

This is the worst 25th December I have spent although last year's also come very close to it. Did nothing but sit at home and cry and get depressed and once in a while came to BC to argue with arnab bhai which was the only interesting facet of the day.

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
Finally, I know arnab bhai would never concede his position on the issue and I will not on mine. (he is way too stubborn to change his views and so am I)

Why dont one of the other distinguished learned member of BC come in and judge whose case makes more sense and declare one of us as the "winner". If I lose i will be gracious about it I promise.


Otherwise this would go on and on until my school reopens and I get busier with school work.

This is the worst 25th December I have spent although last year's also come very close to it. Did nothing but sit at home and cry and get depressed and once in a while came to BC to argue with arnab bhai which was the only interesting facet of the day.

SOrry about that buddy. Hopefully your new years will be better.

[Special 1]

To Shariyar,

You bring up this car market example as a barometer for poverty alleviation.
Remember a rich family can buy more than one car. You complain about Arnab's argument based on the price of a car, but you are assuming that one family buys 1 or 2 cars. Think about it. Also, These 1 dollar a day or 2 dollar a day measure need to be revised. Prices are increasing in teh world. What you could buy with 50 taka a day in bd 5 years ago you cannot now

[layperson]

Originally Posted by BBgun
To Shariyar,

You bring up this car market example as a barometer for poverty alleviation.
Remember a rich family can buy more than one car. You complain about Arnab's argument based on the price of a car, but you are assuming that one family buys 1 or 2 cars. Think about it. Also, These 1 dollar a day or 2 dollar a day measure need to be revised. Prices are increasing in teh world. What you could buy with 50 taka a day in bd 5 years ago you cannot now

Yes I agree rich families buy more than one car. However my point is the cars that are being manufactured in Indian now are not what the rich buy. Even if a couple of rich people do buy those cars that would be a statistically insignificant number. The manufacturers are not opening units based on hope that some rich people would buy their cars. They know that the middle class is growing in India which is what the motivating factor is for investing in the car market for them. If you notice, now one or two of the companies are introducing some luxury cars for the higher end customers but still most are based on the cheaper cars.

[layperson]

Originally Posted by BBgun
SOrry about that buddy. Hopefully your new years will be better.

Thanks for the good wishes !!! I hope so too.

[PoorFan]

Estimates of the Gini coefficient in India vary, from 0.37 to 0.42. After remaining more or less constant for the first four decades after independence, it has been steadily rising after the advent of liberalisation and globalisation. Actually, we don’t need an economist to tell us that income inequality — also inequality in access to clean drinking water, decent housing, good education, proper healthcare, etc. — is rising. Cast a glance at urban or rural India, and you’ll have ample proof that India, though far more prosperous today than ever before, is also far more iniquitous now than ever before.

Hmm ... I am really confused since I have no knowledge at all in economics...

Is this 'inequality' rising only because of 'liberalization and globalization'? or just because of govt policy making failure? There must be other variables & terms like population birth rate, death rate, environmental change, disaster, international market ( oil, food, technology etc. ), international politics ( war, embargo etc. ), and may be many other things? Since these terms can change the cost ( in a short term ) of daily commodities and daily life so rapidly, the percentage of inequality may appear more rising and significant than old days. Besides, since life style is going to be more 'convenient' and costly in a rapid way, 'water system', 'decent housing' and 'good education' naturally get more costly, hence inequality appears here also.

Finally, how should we explain that without this high growth rate of India ( because of 'liberalization and globalization' ) would have caused 'less inequality' in their society? considering the huge / rapid change in globe last couple of decades? One thing I can imagine, without this 'liberalization and globalization', India, China or even Bangladesh would be as much happy as those 'central asia country' is now. There might be less 'internal inequality' but the gulf of 'external inequality' ( xxxx vs world ) definitely exist ( of course not because of 'globalization' ), which they might have to face sooner or later, but in a hard and long way.

In that sense, as long as India achieving high growth rate, decent position in world market and technology ... India is in right track at least. If it is the question of govt. policy making on reducing poverty ... there must be always some room to improve.

[PoorFan]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
Yes I agree rich families buy more than one car. However my point is the cars that are being manufactured in Indian now are not what the rich buy. Even if a couple of rich people do buy those cars that would be a statistically insignificant number. The manufacturers are not opening units based on hope that some rich people would buy their cars. They know that the middle class is growing in India which is what the motivating factor is for investing in the car market for them. If you notice, now one or two of the companies are introducing some luxury cars for the higher end customers but still most are based on the cheaper cars.

India's middle class is growing fast, same goes with china it's a fact. No need to argue with, just ask Japanese carmanufacturers and other brand companies of cosmetics & fashion of the world. Japanese car & parts manufacturers are also coming to Bangladesh very soon, and of course targeting our 'growing' middle class. Doesn't matter if any one agree with you or not, it's just a fact, same as 'growing inequality' is also a fact, so leave it here.

[PoorFan]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
Why dont one of the other distinguished learned member of BC come in and judge whose case makes more sense and declare one of us as the "winner". If I lose i will be gracious about it I promise.

Otherwise this would go on and on until my school reopens and I get busier with school work.

Hehe ... I didnt noticed this comment till now!!! Well to be honest ... you have your point and no one yet convinced me to think you are wrong! So you are the 'winner'. So stay confident what you said, and concentrate in your school work.

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by PoorFan
Hehe ... I didnt noticed this comment till now!!! Well to be honest ... you have your point and no one yet convinced me to think you are wrong! So you are the 'winner'. So stay confident what you said, and concentrate in your school work.

Miya...amio to Shahriar er motoi kotha bollam. Amare winner er podok dilen na ken? Arr khelbo na

PS: This is typical Bangali shobhab...I'm just one in the bunch.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
OK, first you say that you are not aware of any "norms" which define poverty alleviation as the decrease in the percentage of pop. under the poverty line.

Yes, I am not aware of any "norms". But YOU seemed to be quite confident about a "norm". So I asked you if you knew of any.

In that case what do the "learned" people like yourself mean when you speak of poverty alleviation?

I don't think you can box me into this "learned people" category you are talking about. I don't think I have talked about the definition and nature of poverty and its alleviation with a 100% authority in this thread. I was more curious to know about what you think. Hence all the questions.

When the World Bank, IMF, governments of different countries talk about poverty alleviation what do they refer to ? Care to explain ? Yes there are different poverty lines for different countries, true and poverty is measured on different scales in different countries but how does that change the concept of poverty alleviation?

It means if you want to talk with any authority on poverty alleviation, you need to be aware of all these and should refrain from making authoritative statements as if you know what the "norm" is and what not.

You are asking me what makes me think that the relative % of poor people will shrink. My point is not relative, my point is making a greater % of the pop go above the poverty line. The article you provided shows that with time a greater % of the pop. is crossing the poverty line

Er, no. The article shows the opposite. It shows that there's probably a greater % of population in India below the poverty line now.

which is exactly what I look for when thinking about poverty alleviation. Not out of some personal definition but the definition of poverty alleviation that everyone uses.

As you can see from above, you misread the article.

You say the range I have put forward is arbitrary. Obviously it is and I think I said so in my post as well. What is important is whether you agree with the arbitrary range or not. If not please suggest one yourself.

I am not going to suggest one myself unless I have some good reason to so. If I did, it would be as arbitrary. And I question your arbitrary range as well.

I repeat once again there is no fixed or certain formula as such that can give you a range for the middle income in a country.

How are you so sure about this?

When you say I added a new definition to middle class foregoing my previous range you must have misunderstood. In the definition I said, a class of skilled workers earning "middle" income and that "middle" income is the range I provided before. I hope you see the connection between the two now.

While there may be a good degree of correlation between a person's technical and entrepreneurial skills, there's no point in bringing up this connection unless is introduces something new to measure. If you are already measuring what is the "middle class" based on whatever you defined as "middle income", then that should be it. Why unnecessarily bring up technical/entrepreneurial skills?

You ask for my argument for the range that I provided. It is based on the way I perceive the life in Bangladesh, the standard of living of people.

Sure. That's a very normal, non-methodical way to look at things. And I thought we were talking about India's poverty alleviation. You cannot judge India's poverty alleviation using your perception of life in Bangladesh. That would be a mistake.

We are talking about a topic that has to be based on some assumptions and it is impossible to come up with a factual number for the range as you should know very well too. My assumption is the way I perceive standard of living in Bangladesh. I think most people would agree that the income bracket I mentioned would fall in the middle class category. If you think otherwise please give me a range yourself.

This is irrelevant. Stay on topic. We are talking about India's poverty alleviation.

Regarding the car market I expected better arguments from you.

My answer will depend on the quality of your argument. I don't think car market figures are even a good measure of poverty alleviation in the first place. Since it's YOU who brought up car markets, it's up to YOU to provide good arguments for yuor inclusion.

Your whole argument is based on the fact if car prices have gone down,

No, I said "if car prices have gone down or stayed the same in REAL terms." In economics, there's a concept called real vs nominal value. A car's nominal price might have gone up, but a car's real price might have gone down or stayed the same. In that case, the middle income guy who has seen a rise in his real income over the years can afford a car now.

but the point is car prices have not gone down.

See above.

Moreover even if car prices do go down they dont change so much that a poor person in absolute term would be able to afford it. Cars in those part of the world are only affordable for middle income and higher income groups.

So the real poor people living below the poverty line has remained poor and the "middle income" and "higher income" groups now have more cars, is that what you are saying?

Increase in the number of car owners would mean that either of those groups are getting bigger in number.

Not really. It might mean that the number has remained the same, but now the middle income class have more car owners.

Since the cars being manufactured now in India cater to the middle class I think we can conlcude that the middle class is getting bigger in India.

Nope. You can only safely conclude that the number of car owners in the middle class are getting bigger in India. Think about it. And how is this related to the people living below the poverty line? The middle income people were not living below the poverty line even before. And I thought you said poverty alleviation deals with people living below the poverty line. So bringing up the growth in the number of car owners in the middle income class doesn't seem very related to poverty alleviation (PA) even by the definition of PA you have chosen to adhere to.

Ohh I wanted to ask one more thing, As I told you my english skills are relatively weak, what did you mean by "Easy Grasshopper". Eita kintu explain korte bhulben nah if you do reply to this post.

Think Mr Miyagi and Karate Kid.

*****
The bottomline, as far as I am concerned, is this: If you want to talk with some authority and coherence in this topic, you cannot be wishy-washy and apply some random set of assumptions. You need to define the key terms and metrics re: poverty alleviation (for example, as has come up in this discussion, terms like poverty, poverty line, relative poverty, absolute poverty, low/middle/high income, etc.) and consistently stick to those definitions.

[layperson]

Originally Posted by Kabir
Miya...amio to Shahriar er motoi kotha bollam. Amare winner er podok dilen na ken? Arr khelbo na

PS: This is typical Bangali shobhab...I'm just one in the bunch.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaa Kobeer bhai abaro naam bhul !!!!!!!!!eibar apnar tao ektu distort korlam revenge neyar jonno.

[layperson]

Originally Posted by PoorFan
Hehe ... I didnt noticed this comment till now!!! Well to be honest ... you have your point and no one yet convinced me to think you are wrong! So you are the 'winner'. So stay confident what you said, and concentrate in your school work.

Thanks Poor Fan. Its always good to be acknowledged.

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaa Kobeer bhai abaro naam bhul !!!!!!!!!eibar apnar tao ektu distort korlam revenge neyar jonno.

Akromonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Shahriyar...khoma ekti mohot goon. Kobeer feels that. Khub kharap laglo amar naam er spelling wrong howa dekhe. I feel your pain now.

[Kabir]

Sorry Shahriyar, I have a good friend with spelling Shahriar. That's why make that mistake...need to pay more attention in your case now

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by PoorFan
Hmm ... I am really confused since I have no knowledge at all in economics...

Is this 'inequality' rising only because of 'liberalization and globalization'? or just because of govt policy making failure? There must be other variables & terms like population birth rate, death rate, environmental change, disaster, international market ( oil, food, technology etc. ), international politics ( war, embargo etc. ), and may be many other things? Since these terms can change the cost ( in a short term ) of daily commodities and daily life so rapidly, the percentage of inequality may appear more rising and significant than old days. Besides, since life style is going to be more 'convenient' and costly in a rapid way, 'water system', 'decent housing' and 'good education' naturally get more costly, hence inequality appears here also.

Finally, how should we explain that without this high growth rate of India ( because of 'liberalization and globalization' ) would have caused 'less inequality' in their society? considering the huge / rapid change in globe last couple of decades? One thing I can imagine, without this 'liberalization and globalization', India, China or even Bangladesh would be as much happy as those 'central asia country' is now. There might be less 'internal inequality' but the gulf of 'external inequality' ( xxxx vs world ) definitely exist ( of course not because of 'globalization' ), which they might have to face sooner or later, but in a hard and long way.

In that sense, as long as India achieving high growth rate, decent position in world market and technology ... India is in right track at least. If it is the question of govt. policy making on reducing poverty ... there must be always some room to improve.

You may not have any clue about economics. But you do sound like one.

[PoorFan]

But that's not exactly a good argument. It's kinda like Bush saying Iraq will be better off in the long run but he doesn't know when that is really going to happen and in the meantime, Iraq burns despite having removed a tyrant like Saddam. If Iraqis become more democratic and prosperous say in 2015, will you forget all the Iraqis killed inthe meantime and give Bush credit for the eventual prosperity? I think it's a good analogy to your line of argument here.

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.