Return of socialism? I hope not. The later statement would be an excellent (and expected) step had the first been not true.

I wonder if he has adjustd these numbers for inflation - as cumulative inflation between 1990-2005 is more than 100%, which could potentially wipe out all the benefits of the GDP increase.

Eswaran, in your #119 in Yazad’s earlier discussion, you say: You might ask me why should the goal of reforms be increasing the GDP and not reducing the poverty. … the simple answer is, the first strategy has worked to reduce poverty in many countries …

Now you’ve completely confused me. (No rhetoric, I mean this). The goal of reforms is increasing the GDP, you say, and not reducing poverty. But then you say increasing the GDP is itself a mechanism to reduce poverty.

Therefore, the aim of the reforms were to increase GDP, which is a means to reduce poverty — which is the aim I said I wanted for the reforms. Are we agreeing with each other or is there something I’m missing?

In his recent book “Being Indian”, Pavan Verma makes a point that’s relevant here. He says increasing GDP (i.e. the pie) is the only way to reduce poverty in India, and for this reason: in his estimation, people in India are profoundly indifferent to the state of the poor, and that’s why other mechanisms to tackle poverty have failed.

Semantics aside, Eswaran, do understand: a lot of people are tired of being told to “wait”. They heard that during garibi hatao and they are hearing it now, and they simply don’t see a difference. Because they don’t see others as being made to wait. (which is why I said, “they can see for themselves how middle-class lives have been changed dramatically.”)

Vel, I’d like to see some confirmation of what you say about inflation being better than 100% between 1990 and 2005. Are you saying I’m paying better than double today to maintain the same lifestyle? I’m not so sure. Some things, like long-distance rates, have actually gotten substantially cheaper, and I’m not sure other things have better than doubled in price.

And in my last line in #116 in the earlier discussion, I missed a link. It should have read thus: “And finally, disagreements should be conducted in a civil manner, and many users tend to use such forums to vent their frustrations.

1) One which will increase GDP by a large amount
and

2) Another which will be a drag on the GDP but promises to distribute the increased income more equitably,

we should go in for the former. That is because, according to him, either
a) the promise of equitable distribution usually turns out to be false
or
b) The drag on the GDP is so much that the poor are better off under policy 1 than under policy 2.

Or both, of course.

Of course, the commodities that are tracked to determine inflation do not include long distance phone calls and cell phones et al .. They strike much closer to the heart of India - Rice, pulses, cooking oil etc …