GP Two-Part Vote ?
What's that? A curse? No, in fact, and to the contrary, perhaps deliverance, though not the divine kind! Don't get it? Read on!
Just today, as has happened innumerable times before, the people of Jharkhand gave a fractured mandate with seats split three-, even four-ways. In doing so, they have brought upon themselves the likelihood of a coalition - a result none of them voted for, and a result that, I suspect, many parties were eagerly awaiting for (so much for 'independent platforms and manifestos'), and not for the opportunities to congratulate one another! And that is the crux of this blog. Our voting system, as I have pointed out earlier, does not permit the voter to distinguish between his choice of candidate for his constituency and the choice of the party to form the government.
Is that a problem? Clearly. Every constituency has its popular faces. While many candidates turned popular because they were supported by political parties, there are as many other instances in which a candidate is well-known in the constituency because of his or her family's deep social and business roots. In these instances, the voter is put in a dilemma. Does he or she vote for the candidate who has the regard of people in the constituency, or does (s)he vote for one of the dummies propped up by the political parties irrespective of his or her social roots? What if the candidate's morals/beliefs/lifestyle are/is not in sync with the voters? What if the party 'high-command' shifts political lanes without caring to revise its list of candidates? What if the 'right' candidate is in the 'wrong' party, or, the 'right' party has chosen the 'wrong' candidate, or is in a 'wrong coalition'...? Must the party always seek a 'popular, mainstream' candidate no matter how strong or weak it is in a constituency? Must the voter's choice of candidate be inevitably tied to the choice of party to rule the state? Aren't they different questions that must have necessarily different answers? Why then do we force a 'bundled choice' on the voters?
It occurs to me that, rather than ignore them as moot, irrelevant and impractical questions, we could do something different. Like structure the ballot differently. Since the core problem is the separation of the choice of one's representative from the choice of the party to form the government, why not design a 'two-part ballot' that achieves the same - a ballot that seeks your choice of the representative for the constituency, and your choice of the party to form the government in the state. The voter, freed of evaluating the more complex 'bundled', 'candidate-cum-ruling party' choice, now makes independent decisions as regards his representative, and, as regards the party to form the government. We now have two vote counts. First, the 'constituency votes' that decide the fate of candidates in their respective constituencies, and second, the 'party votes', summed across constituencies, which decides the party that will form the government.
Under the 'two-part ballot', parties that do poorly in constituencies may yet form the majority government. Conversely, a party with 'popular' candidates may win the 'grassroots battle' in the constituencies and yet lose the larger 'war' if voters turn away from nominating it to rule the state. For those academically-minded, the separation of the 'representation question' from the 'power question' enhances efficiency in public choice and enables better matching of candidates to parties and parties to constituencies. And reduces the likelihood of 'coalition' governments.
More Choice, More Freedom, More Democracy! Whatdya say?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Hail Mary Pass !!!!
Hail Mary Pass!!!!
Ganga Prasad Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
For once, I am glad I didn't graduate in finance! Why, I'd be burned with flame-mail for the sacrilege I am about to commit!
Much attention has been devoted to the study of volatility in equity markets. Many have reached the conclusion it is the search for short-term 'rents' - overnight profits from 'get-rich quick' derivatives - that is to blame. But greed being what it is, it is inconceivable to mandate the elimination of short-term trading opportunities (though, and at a tangent, I can see why speculators are no longer necessary in 'mature' commodity markets). Many also subscribe to the viewpoint markets should reward those 'enterprising' investors who pay to acquire superior information and do their 'homework' over less agile or less alert investors. So, how do we go about designing a solution that rewards 'good' investment behavior over 'bad'? Read on!
The core idea is that every firm on the stock market annually rewards its long term investors exclusively in some proportion to the holding period of their stock purchases. If a firm disbursed 'shareholder appreciation bonus shares' end of year, then investors would have an incentive to desist from short-term profit-booking. But wouldn't the 'bonuses' dilute the investor's equity capital? The answer? No, not if properly designed. A firm buys 'short shares' in the market and issues them, in whole or part, as year-end bonuses to its 'long shareholders'. There is no dimunition in stock value because shares are not 'created anew' from 'splits' or 'rights''; ie, the equity base of the firm stays unchanged. If all listed firms adopted this program, we would have a market in which the incentives are no longer skewed toward 'here and now' behavior. Short-term traders and trades would very much exist but no longer inordinately influence the broader market. Short trades would likely occur less frequently in response to temporary large arbitrages gaps, or 'hot' information overlooked by or otherwise unknown to the 'ornery investor - opportunities which the short investors perhaps rightfully claim as their 'domain'.
So much for the 'concept'. Now the mechanics made easy. The stock exchange first 'tags' every equity share in every investor's portfolio with a 'w', 'm', 'q', or 'L' according to holding period. That's easy given the electronic transactions records and the massive computing power that we now have at hand (Cloud computing, there's gotta be a use for it, right?!) The 'L' shares are further classified in to 'L1', 'L2', ...., 'L9' and 'L' depending upon the number of years held. Each firm institutes a 'legal' program, if at an arm's distance, that buys the 'w'- , the 'm'- and the 'q'-class shares whenever it feels the value is below long-term value (and sells them in over-heated markets). (This should come as no surprise to the financial whizzes who split stocks or 'buy-back' shares to shore up stock prices). Accumulated shares are 'distributed' end of year (or, by some other schedule) to long-term investors in some proportion to their holding period. Firms participate in the program (and disburse bonus shares) to different extents, consistent with the state of their financial health and their view of long term prospects among other factors. If the firm's arm bought a net of 1 million 'short' shares over the year, and it has a total of, say 100 million-year 'L(x)' shares on its books, it issues 1 share for every 100 'long-share-years' held by the investor. The wizened old guy holding 100 'L' shares (100 x 10 = 1000 long share-years) earns 1/100X1000 = 10 shares as his year-end bonus. The 'short-turned-long investor' with 100 'L1' shares, receives 1 bonus share to start with. 10% bonus for the 'long glasses' ain't something to sneeze upon?
Think about it. You don't have to play the market by the hour, day or week to make an honest return. Hold long and add to your capital. And the bonus shares do not eat in to your capital appreciation either! The proposal doesn't require a massive overhaul of the markets. It is straightforward and easy to implement. There may be a thousand minor details to worry about (in particular, financing of the scheme and its 'legitimacy'), but the core idea stands. Reward the 'long glasses' by exploiting the 'externality' caused by the impatience of the 'short yuppy', and the various opportunities thrown up by the market over the course of the year.
'Long-term shareholder value creation' ain't merely a buzzword in speeches and Annual Reports? Or, is it?
Ganga Prasad Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
For once, I am glad I didn't graduate in finance! Why, I'd be burned with flame-mail for the sacrilege I am about to commit!
Much attention has been devoted to the study of volatility in equity markets. Many have reached the conclusion it is the search for short-term 'rents' - overnight profits from 'get-rich quick' derivatives - that is to blame. But greed being what it is, it is inconceivable to mandate the elimination of short-term trading opportunities (though, and at a tangent, I can see why speculators are no longer necessary in 'mature' commodity markets). Many also subscribe to the viewpoint markets should reward those 'enterprising' investors who pay to acquire superior information and do their 'homework' over less agile or less alert investors. So, how do we go about designing a solution that rewards 'good' investment behavior over 'bad'? Read on!
The core idea is that every firm on the stock market annually rewards its long term investors exclusively in some proportion to the holding period of their stock purchases. If a firm disbursed 'shareholder appreciation bonus shares' end of year, then investors would have an incentive to desist from short-term profit-booking. But wouldn't the 'bonuses' dilute the investor's equity capital? The answer? No, not if properly designed. A firm buys 'short shares' in the market and issues them, in whole or part, as year-end bonuses to its 'long shareholders'. There is no dimunition in stock value because shares are not 'created anew' from 'splits' or 'rights''; ie, the equity base of the firm stays unchanged. If all listed firms adopted this program, we would have a market in which the incentives are no longer skewed toward 'here and now' behavior. Short-term traders and trades would very much exist but no longer inordinately influence the broader market. Short trades would likely occur less frequently in response to temporary large arbitrages gaps, or 'hot' information overlooked by or otherwise unknown to the 'ornery investor - opportunities which the short investors perhaps rightfully claim as their 'domain'.
So much for the 'concept'. Now the mechanics made easy. The stock exchange first 'tags' every equity share in every investor's portfolio with a 'w', 'm', 'q', or 'L' according to holding period. That's easy given the electronic transactions records and the massive computing power that we now have at hand (Cloud computing, there's gotta be a use for it, right?!) The 'L' shares are further classified in to 'L1', 'L2', ...., 'L9' and 'L' depending upon the number of years held. Each firm institutes a 'legal' program, if at an arm's distance, that buys the 'w'- , the 'm'- and the 'q'-class shares whenever it feels the value is below long-term value (and sells them in over-heated markets). (This should come as no surprise to the financial whizzes who split stocks or 'buy-back' shares to shore up stock prices). Accumulated shares are 'distributed' end of year (or, by some other schedule) to long-term investors in some proportion to their holding period. Firms participate in the program (and disburse bonus shares) to different extents, consistent with the state of their financial health and their view of long term prospects among other factors. If the firm's arm bought a net of 1 million 'short' shares over the year, and it has a total of, say 100 million-year 'L(x)' shares on its books, it issues 1 share for every 100 'long-share-years' held by the investor. The wizened old guy holding 100 'L' shares (100 x 10 = 1000 long share-years) earns 1/100X1000 = 10 shares as his year-end bonus. The 'short-turned-long investor' with 100 'L1' shares, receives 1 bonus share to start with. 10% bonus for the 'long glasses' ain't something to sneeze upon?
Think about it. You don't have to play the market by the hour, day or week to make an honest return. Hold long and add to your capital. And the bonus shares do not eat in to your capital appreciation either! The proposal doesn't require a massive overhaul of the markets. It is straightforward and easy to implement. There may be a thousand minor details to worry about (in particular, financing of the scheme and its 'legitimacy'), but the core idea stands. Reward the 'long glasses' by exploiting the 'externality' caused by the impatience of the 'short yuppy', and the various opportunities thrown up by the market over the course of the year.
'Long-term shareholder value creation' ain't merely a buzzword in speeches and Annual Reports? Or, is it?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
'Byte Credits (and Byte Penalties)' – Online Gateway to Social Equity?
'Byte Credits (and Byte Penalties)' – Online Gateway to Social Equity?
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
With so many email solicitations, pop-up windows for shopping and online survey invitations, it is questionable whether one ever gets to the important stuff on the internet beyond glamor girls, cine awards and afternoon gossip-metamorphosed to late-evening internet chats. You know, stuff like emerging technology, social policy initiatives and documents, financial meltdown, global warming, reports from riot commissions, hygiene and nutrition, advances in medicine, groundbreaking scientific discoveries, theses, court opinions, ... the list is endless. The sad answer, for most of us internet addicts, is No! Despite immediate access, we are limited in what we surf and learn on the world-wide web. In a manner, we are deluged by the inane on the net, and left with little time for the sublime.
Years back, I realized those seeking our participation in surveys on the net had value for our opinions – what economists call 'willingness to pay'. Your response provides valuable information which, with the responses of many others, provides the basis for survey sponsors to formulate plans, designs and strategies, or compile reports and recommendations. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find certain surveys offering a gift or various other prizes – certain, or, by lottery. As alluded above, there is another wide body of internet content for which we individuals have little time for, but which would be socially most useful if we perused it. If we are paid or lured to browse certain content of private or commercial interest, shouldn't the same apply to content of social interest? How then do we achieve this system of incentives (and disincentives)?
I am no freeware/shareware/'open' software provider who keeps afloat with his ingenious ways of earning money for software downloaded free (by the way, how do they survive?). But, if it is our intention to promote certain socially informative and useful content, the Government, as the representative of the people, could set aside a fund and apply it to subsidize socially productive content (rather than implicitly subsidize all content indiscriminately as is perhaps the case today)? With a 'content-based' subsidy we could 'code' internet pages with 'byte credits' for socially beneficial content and 'byte penalties' for 'other content', that the ISP processes in a straightforward way. If every pop-up ad that you 'accept' on your monitor (and 'acknowledge' by returning a 'cookie' back) earns you 'byte credits' on your ISP bill, so would socially beneficial web content - whether RTI forms, health and hygiene information, policy documents or school/library material (with a limit on a monthly basis to exclude misuse). In fact, we could boost public governance by even soliciting surveys broadly from the public concerning national issues on a regular basis.
Sure, it is not as easy as I claim it is. The byte credits would, akin to the prices of goods and services, vary with content and time, and the reputation of the content supplier/host. Certain sites that claim to update information regularly would, justifiably, claim a higher 'byte rate' than those others who follow a 'post and forget' policy. In the case of surveys, 'byte credits' could be coded to vary with the number of pages/questions, and the time spent on it. Over time, the system of 'byte credits' and 'byte penalties' would spawn both the supply of and demand for socially useful content. Search engines would sort search results by various criteria including 'byte credits/penalties', and surfers could use the criterion to selectively choose and view content. True, merely downloading a web page or document in itself does little to add to intelligence or social equity, but it is a start nonetheless**. And, parents who almost risk a stroke on looking up the broadband bill will heave a sigh of relief if their children learn a thing or two under this 'intelligent web world' (IWW).
Now that would be something to look forward to. Right?
** To dissuade downloading large documents merely for credits, and to ensure the document is read in its entirety, large downloads may be split in many parts and credit only offered with the last part contingent on the downloading of all preceding parts.
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
With so many email solicitations, pop-up windows for shopping and online survey invitations, it is questionable whether one ever gets to the important stuff on the internet beyond glamor girls, cine awards and afternoon gossip-metamorphosed to late-evening internet chats. You know, stuff like emerging technology, social policy initiatives and documents, financial meltdown, global warming, reports from riot commissions, hygiene and nutrition, advances in medicine, groundbreaking scientific discoveries, theses, court opinions, ... the list is endless. The sad answer, for most of us internet addicts, is No! Despite immediate access, we are limited in what we surf and learn on the world-wide web. In a manner, we are deluged by the inane on the net, and left with little time for the sublime.
Years back, I realized those seeking our participation in surveys on the net had value for our opinions – what economists call 'willingness to pay'. Your response provides valuable information which, with the responses of many others, provides the basis for survey sponsors to formulate plans, designs and strategies, or compile reports and recommendations. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find certain surveys offering a gift or various other prizes – certain, or, by lottery. As alluded above, there is another wide body of internet content for which we individuals have little time for, but which would be socially most useful if we perused it. If we are paid or lured to browse certain content of private or commercial interest, shouldn't the same apply to content of social interest? How then do we achieve this system of incentives (and disincentives)?
I am no freeware/shareware/'open' software provider who keeps afloat with his ingenious ways of earning money for software downloaded free (by the way, how do they survive?). But, if it is our intention to promote certain socially informative and useful content, the Government, as the representative of the people, could set aside a fund and apply it to subsidize socially productive content (rather than implicitly subsidize all content indiscriminately as is perhaps the case today)? With a 'content-based' subsidy we could 'code' internet pages with 'byte credits' for socially beneficial content and 'byte penalties' for 'other content', that the ISP processes in a straightforward way. If every pop-up ad that you 'accept' on your monitor (and 'acknowledge' by returning a 'cookie' back) earns you 'byte credits' on your ISP bill, so would socially beneficial web content - whether RTI forms, health and hygiene information, policy documents or school/library material (with a limit on a monthly basis to exclude misuse). In fact, we could boost public governance by even soliciting surveys broadly from the public concerning national issues on a regular basis.
Sure, it is not as easy as I claim it is. The byte credits would, akin to the prices of goods and services, vary with content and time, and the reputation of the content supplier/host. Certain sites that claim to update information regularly would, justifiably, claim a higher 'byte rate' than those others who follow a 'post and forget' policy. In the case of surveys, 'byte credits' could be coded to vary with the number of pages/questions, and the time spent on it. Over time, the system of 'byte credits' and 'byte penalties' would spawn both the supply of and demand for socially useful content. Search engines would sort search results by various criteria including 'byte credits/penalties', and surfers could use the criterion to selectively choose and view content. True, merely downloading a web page or document in itself does little to add to intelligence or social equity, but it is a start nonetheless**. And, parents who almost risk a stroke on looking up the broadband bill will heave a sigh of relief if their children learn a thing or two under this 'intelligent web world' (IWW).
Now that would be something to look forward to. Right?
** To dissuade downloading large documents merely for credits, and to ensure the document is read in its entirety, large downloads may be split in many parts and credit only offered with the last part contingent on the downloading of all preceding parts.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Election Days are Here Again, Thumbs Down! Thumbs Down!
Election Days are Here Again, Thumbs Down! Thumbs Down!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Elections are in the air! "Oh, Not again" seems to be the general response, though some 'upstarts' from media journalists and newspapers, corporates/corporate leaders and 'Lead India candidates' have raised their voices to create more awareness of the polls and the import of voting among the masses. There is as much talk of 'gender equality' in political representation, as there is of the corruption and criminalization of politics, and the sham that elections have turned in to. From the post-independence days when the Congress party was the only game in town to those years in the 60s and 70s when political pundits bemoaned the absence of a credible alternative to the Congress, to the present day when every politician of every hue forms a party of his own to extract maximum 'mileage' in coalition government formation, politics has come a long way. In fact, politics is no longer about serving the people by governing, lawmaking and administering on their behalf. It has turned in to a business of representing various ideological and commercial interest groups while enriching party coffers and its supporters.
In the din of election posturing and confusion, there was one suggestion that seemed to offer a glimmer of democratic hope. Negative voting, as it is called, offers the now powerless voters a tool to reject candidates in the fray, albeit as a group. By empowering voters to individually and collectively express their rejection of fielded candidates, negative voting offers voters a tool to communicate their disgust to politicians. But is negative voting in itself enough? The reality is, total boycott has always been an option, but has been rarely achieved. So what are the chances of negative voting, which too requires coordinated action from voters? Yes, the threat of negative voting could irk some party leaders in to pondering about their choices of candidates in rebellious constituencies, but don't they already count on blocks of support promised by their (corrupt) candidate? Besides, in the larger scheme of things, a rare rebellious constituency may not be of interest, or even matter. So, what recourse do the voters have?
If parties impose corrupt candidates with criminal backgrounds upon voters so they may win elections the easy way and rule the roost in the Parliament, why not consider a scheme of things in which they are punished for flouting ethical norms, or equivalently, rewarded for abiding by them? One way to get around criminalization of politics is to offer some sort of 'clean character credits (CCC)' to parties that they could use in the Parliament. Such credits could be offered by a committee constituted of the Election Commission, Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of State High Courts who meet in the weeks before elections to pass their judgment on candidates, possibly on a scale of 1 to 10. Subject to certain stringent vote thresholds, say, >20% of 'legal' votes polled (and party conduct during elections), these 'Clean Character Credit (CCC)' points would be awarded to political parties after elections. At this stage, it'd be necessary to recognize these CCC points legally in the Parliament. If such credits could be made to count in critical motions and votes in the normal course of Parliamentary business, then parties would have an incentive to field and elect 'clean' candidates. The question is, how do we integrate the CCC scheme in to the scheme of things as exists now? One could conjure up various possibilities, from using these points to decide 'ties' and 'close votes', to including them in specific votes such as the vote on budget, or the vote of no confidence. This list is not exhaustive, but let's not leave it to our politicians (lest it turns in to a joke like the gender quota - incidentally a policy I do not support).
Properly implemented, the CCC incentive, possibly in combination with the negative vote, could push political parties to adopt higher standards of morality both in fielding election candidates and in electioneering, thus bringing about decriminalization of politics.
Surely worth a try?
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Elections are in the air! "Oh, Not again" seems to be the general response, though some 'upstarts' from media journalists and newspapers, corporates/corporate leaders and 'Lead India candidates' have raised their voices to create more awareness of the polls and the import of voting among the masses. There is as much talk of 'gender equality' in political representation, as there is of the corruption and criminalization of politics, and the sham that elections have turned in to. From the post-independence days when the Congress party was the only game in town to those years in the 60s and 70s when political pundits bemoaned the absence of a credible alternative to the Congress, to the present day when every politician of every hue forms a party of his own to extract maximum 'mileage' in coalition government formation, politics has come a long way. In fact, politics is no longer about serving the people by governing, lawmaking and administering on their behalf. It has turned in to a business of representing various ideological and commercial interest groups while enriching party coffers and its supporters.
In the din of election posturing and confusion, there was one suggestion that seemed to offer a glimmer of democratic hope. Negative voting, as it is called, offers the now powerless voters a tool to reject candidates in the fray, albeit as a group. By empowering voters to individually and collectively express their rejection of fielded candidates, negative voting offers voters a tool to communicate their disgust to politicians. But is negative voting in itself enough? The reality is, total boycott has always been an option, but has been rarely achieved. So what are the chances of negative voting, which too requires coordinated action from voters? Yes, the threat of negative voting could irk some party leaders in to pondering about their choices of candidates in rebellious constituencies, but don't they already count on blocks of support promised by their (corrupt) candidate? Besides, in the larger scheme of things, a rare rebellious constituency may not be of interest, or even matter. So, what recourse do the voters have?
If parties impose corrupt candidates with criminal backgrounds upon voters so they may win elections the easy way and rule the roost in the Parliament, why not consider a scheme of things in which they are punished for flouting ethical norms, or equivalently, rewarded for abiding by them? One way to get around criminalization of politics is to offer some sort of 'clean character credits (CCC)' to parties that they could use in the Parliament. Such credits could be offered by a committee constituted of the Election Commission, Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of State High Courts who meet in the weeks before elections to pass their judgment on candidates, possibly on a scale of 1 to 10. Subject to certain stringent vote thresholds, say, >20% of 'legal' votes polled (and party conduct during elections), these 'Clean Character Credit (CCC)' points would be awarded to political parties after elections. At this stage, it'd be necessary to recognize these CCC points legally in the Parliament. If such credits could be made to count in critical motions and votes in the normal course of Parliamentary business, then parties would have an incentive to field and elect 'clean' candidates. The question is, how do we integrate the CCC scheme in to the scheme of things as exists now? One could conjure up various possibilities, from using these points to decide 'ties' and 'close votes', to including them in specific votes such as the vote on budget, or the vote of no confidence. This list is not exhaustive, but let's not leave it to our politicians (lest it turns in to a joke like the gender quota - incidentally a policy I do not support).
Properly implemented, the CCC incentive, possibly in combination with the negative vote, could push political parties to adopt higher standards of morality both in fielding election candidates and in electioneering, thus bringing about decriminalization of politics.
Surely worth a try?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Neo-Socialist Per-Capita Economics
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/
The prophets of doom have spoken. And for once, the financial meltdown did turn those prophecies true. The stock markets, banks and financial institutions fell like nine pins (and with them, the thick volumes of budget and five-year plan documents) when the big daddies pulled the plug on the bourses. They knew better than to expect 50% returns year after year. (Now is not the time to speak of the small investor who lost his house and family to the crisis by following the 'invest and hold long' strategy. Sucker!!!!!) With the threat of an economic collapse following the financial crisis still in the air, and with the upcoming global warming negotiations already casting their long shadow on the industry, the governments of the world are groping for ideas to grow their economy.
Like? Keynesian Economics? Neo-classical laissez faire? Neo-Keynesian Economy? Been there done that! So what's new? Macro-policies from cutting edge research at Berkeley and MIT? Actually, some old wine in new bottle! Give it a name, will you? Okey, call it 'Neo-Socialist Per Capita Economy'. Bear in mind, this strategy is more than economics. It is crafted by the devil himself and does not brook interference by academics! We first affirm democracy is sacrosanct. Next, we declare all people of the world 'equal' and assign them the same rights to life in its various facets. (One of those rights, in particular, is the right to grow one's family. Yes, good times are-a-coming!) In the meanwhile, the Planning Commission compiles detailed statistics comparing our per-capita consumption for various goods and amenities – water, eggs, iron, housing and floor space, vehicles per family, roads per square kilometer, copper consumption, iron production, credit card usage, and the like, against similar measures for developed nations. Then we allow electoral politics to dig the mass grave necessary to provide the impetus for the growth economy. Election time it is. Time to pander dreams and goodies to the masses. Minimum support prices for every damn agricultural product you can think of. A kilo of rice at Rs2; no Rs1; well, actually free if you care to stand in the line. Subsidized gasoline so you don't take to the streets with sickles and burn effigies while I enjoy my vacation abroad. Low low rates for housing loans (and an 'employment stimulus' to ensure the PSU banks do not go under after distributing them!). Don't you see? A subsidized economy is a growing economy (as long as I am in power). Simple as that! (Ok, OK!, we get the idea. Voters know which side their bread is buttered!)
Time to talk tough (now that I have assumed political office), whether WTO or at the global warming summit. God created us equal, God damn it, we'll consume and pollute in equal. Agricultural subsidies equal to those in developed nations...and equal per-capita emissions - that's what we are entitled to. I must grow my economy, if by polluting and excluding imports that replace domestic production. Banks, you must lower interest rates on business loans, and on home loans. That should induce some groundbreaking ceremonies and purchases of bigger cars by larger families. Don't you think so? (Now you know why we don't push population control). Declare employment, power, housing, water and education fundamental rights .... and put up a proposal for laptops and automobiles as well. Empower citizens to sue if denied those rights. That should get the economy going, help us achieve those per-capita targets and claim equality with the developed nations (How do we have them increase their consumption so we could play this game perpetually? Hmm?). Nevermind the plans and policies have loose ends on them. We can correct them in the next plan, or next cycle, or next yuga....whichever comes later (See, it helps to be a Hindu who believes in rebirth).
As for the mountains of industrial and consumer waste, let them be, until there is money in cleaning them up. Who knows, EPA and/or the GEF might be in the 'mood of giving'. Besides, gotta leave some crumbs for those behind!
Who said politicians are not macro-economists? What say you?
Per capita is our magic mantra, Capital idea it is!
Fits well in to our business plans, stock market manipulations,
even election platforms (Fundamental rights are but an extension of our freedom struggle)
Rights that avert economic doom, rights that grease many a palm,
Rights that gladden the hearts of employers, employees, and investors alike!
Rights that launch our economy and propel us to the stars
Rights advantageous in carbon permit trading and WTO negotiations;
Indeed, rights that let the developed nations off the global warming rap!
(So, who is behind the 'Neo-Socialist Per-Capita Economy'?)
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/
The prophets of doom have spoken. And for once, the financial meltdown did turn those prophecies true. The stock markets, banks and financial institutions fell like nine pins (and with them, the thick volumes of budget and five-year plan documents) when the big daddies pulled the plug on the bourses. They knew better than to expect 50% returns year after year. (Now is not the time to speak of the small investor who lost his house and family to the crisis by following the 'invest and hold long' strategy. Sucker!!!!!) With the threat of an economic collapse following the financial crisis still in the air, and with the upcoming global warming negotiations already casting their long shadow on the industry, the governments of the world are groping for ideas to grow their economy.
Like? Keynesian Economics? Neo-classical laissez faire? Neo-Keynesian Economy? Been there done that! So what's new? Macro-policies from cutting edge research at Berkeley and MIT? Actually, some old wine in new bottle! Give it a name, will you? Okey, call it 'Neo-Socialist Per Capita Economy'. Bear in mind, this strategy is more than economics. It is crafted by the devil himself and does not brook interference by academics! We first affirm democracy is sacrosanct. Next, we declare all people of the world 'equal' and assign them the same rights to life in its various facets. (One of those rights, in particular, is the right to grow one's family. Yes, good times are-a-coming!) In the meanwhile, the Planning Commission compiles detailed statistics comparing our per-capita consumption for various goods and amenities – water, eggs, iron, housing and floor space, vehicles per family, roads per square kilometer, copper consumption, iron production, credit card usage, and the like, against similar measures for developed nations. Then we allow electoral politics to dig the mass grave necessary to provide the impetus for the growth economy. Election time it is. Time to pander dreams and goodies to the masses. Minimum support prices for every damn agricultural product you can think of. A kilo of rice at Rs2; no Rs1; well, actually free if you care to stand in the line. Subsidized gasoline so you don't take to the streets with sickles and burn effigies while I enjoy my vacation abroad. Low low rates for housing loans (and an 'employment stimulus' to ensure the PSU banks do not go under after distributing them!). Don't you see? A subsidized economy is a growing economy (as long as I am in power). Simple as that! (Ok, OK!, we get the idea. Voters know which side their bread is buttered!)
Time to talk tough (now that I have assumed political office), whether WTO or at the global warming summit. God created us equal, God damn it, we'll consume and pollute in equal. Agricultural subsidies equal to those in developed nations...and equal per-capita emissions - that's what we are entitled to. I must grow my economy, if by polluting and excluding imports that replace domestic production. Banks, you must lower interest rates on business loans, and on home loans. That should induce some groundbreaking ceremonies and purchases of bigger cars by larger families. Don't you think so? (Now you know why we don't push population control). Declare employment, power, housing, water and education fundamental rights .... and put up a proposal for laptops and automobiles as well. Empower citizens to sue if denied those rights. That should get the economy going, help us achieve those per-capita targets and claim equality with the developed nations (How do we have them increase their consumption so we could play this game perpetually? Hmm?). Nevermind the plans and policies have loose ends on them. We can correct them in the next plan, or next cycle, or next yuga....whichever comes later (See, it helps to be a Hindu who believes in rebirth).
As for the mountains of industrial and consumer waste, let them be, until there is money in cleaning them up. Who knows, EPA and/or the GEF might be in the 'mood of giving'. Besides, gotta leave some crumbs for those behind!
Who said politicians are not macro-economists? What say you?
Per capita is our magic mantra, Capital idea it is!
Fits well in to our business plans, stock market manipulations,
even election platforms (Fundamental rights are but an extension of our freedom struggle)
Rights that avert economic doom, rights that grease many a palm,
Rights that gladden the hearts of employers, employees, and investors alike!
Rights that launch our economy and propel us to the stars
Rights advantageous in carbon permit trading and WTO negotiations;
Indeed, rights that let the developed nations off the global warming rap!
(So, who is behind the 'Neo-Socialist Per-Capita Economy'?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
