The old and new methods match for FY 2014, as pointed out previously.Remember, the absolute GDP number hasnt changed much between the two methodologies, only the growth rates have.
http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... eal/64686/
The old and new methods match for FY 2014, as pointed out previously.Remember, the absolute GDP number hasnt changed much between the two methodologies, only the growth rates have.
No, I'm talking about fiber at the front end to the end user. Let the user then decide how the wireless portion works.amit wrote:With regard to smart city infrastructure. Of course you need a good fibre broadband network for backhaul. But in the front end that is communication from device to the network, what is more important is ubiquitous and rock solid connectivity rather than the sheer speed of connectivity.
Whew! Finally something I can comprehend as well and agree with wholeheartedly ji!Instead of pleading for rate cuts, which will come anyways, the govt needs to get down to real reforms.
Theo_Fidel wrote:No, I'm talking about fiber at the front end to the end user. Let the user then decide how the wireless portion works.amit wrote:With regard to smart city infrastructure. Of course you need a good fibre broadband network for backhaul. But in the front end that is communication from device to the network, what is more important is ubiquitous and rock solid connectivity rather than the sheer speed of connectivity.
It does not matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. You seek economic purity in the motive, which is naivete. Modi rose exactly for the same reason that SSC and VR did - because he mastered the management of the political economy in Gujarat. That is a required skill set, not a negative. It ensures that the BJP builds a cadre of central leaders who also have intimate knowledge over how to win the states they ran, as opposed to Delhi insiders parachuted in at election time to conduct parleys.somnath wrote:Much as we (at least the "optimists") would like to attribute a new found penchant for state-level talent hunts, the rationale are rather more quotidian.
Both Shivraj Chauhan as well as VAsundhara Raje are state leaders with political clout of their own - they can split the BJP state unit if they were shoved out (we saw what happened to BJP in Karnataka with Yeddyyurappa's exit, or in UP with Kalyan Singh). ....
Net net, political conpulsions drive this, not a systemic change of sorts.
A very naive concept. Let's say some imaginary party X 'believes in it'. So they vigorously assert strengthening the city, and focus on mayoral success. How do you think they're going to win, and keep winning ? They won't, and can't, because the state level politics will easily overwhelm them with the money power. It's great to talk about 'believing in it'... but those are empty words that do not address matters of political economy.somnath wrote:Point is that no party believed in systemic devolution of powers downwards.
GDP data is reported on a y-o-y basis. Q1 GDP typically comes in lower than prior fiscal Q4 data. It's higher than the 6.7% in Q1 last fiscal year, which is a fairly high base. 7% in Q1 on top of 6.7% in the prior Q1, in the middle of a parliamentary logjam and a drought situation in early summer is quite a strong performance. The Q4 vs sequential Q1 data is a result of companies closing their books at the end of the year and therefore trying to complete everything pending on time. If you look back at GDP data during the 2000s, there were several instances where Q1 data was 2-3% lower than the sequentially prior Q4 data. If anything, a 0.5% difference suggests economic activity is less cyclical in nature now, compared to before when the bulk of the output growth came in Q3 and Q4, while Q1 was historically the 'quiet period' before the monsoon-derived economic data was available starting Q2.somnath wrote:Q1 GDP growth numbers came in at 7%, sharply lower than previous quarter at 7.5%.
Define real reforms as you see them, and please be specific. Rajiv Gandhi banana republic comments 'humko yeh banana hai, humko woh banana hai' do not countsomnath wrote:Instead of pleading for rate cuts, which will come anyways, the govt needs to get down to real reforms.
The Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) have announced Rs 2 per liter cut in the price of petrol along with a 50 paisa per liter reduction in diesel prices with effect from midnight in order to align domestic rates with global price benchmarks.
Post the price revision, petrol will be charged at Rs 61.20 per liter including state taxes in Delhi while diesel will be priced at Rs 44.45 per liter in Delhi. The prices of both the automobile fuels were last revised on 15 August when petrol prices were cut by Rs 1.27 and diesel rates were slashed by Rs 1.17 per liter.
"Since the last price change, there has been a decrease in international prices of both petrol and diesel. However, the Rupee-Dollar exchange rate has depreciated during this period. The impact of both these factors warrants a downward revision in prices, the impact of which is being passed on to the consumers with this price decrease," Indian Oil Corp (IOC), the nation's largest fuel retailer said in a statement.
India’s economic growth slowed to 7% in the fiscal first quarter ended 30 June from 7.5% in the preceding three months.
A Reuters poll of economists had estimated first quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth at 7.4%.
Agriculture grew 1.9% during the June quarter, while manufacturing growth was pegged at 7.2%. Trade, hotel, transport and communication was the only sector to grow in double digits at 12.8%. The job-generating construction sector grew at 6.9% while the financial services sector grew at 8.9% during the quarter.
During the April-June quarter, while China claimed its economy grew at 7% amidst scepticism by most analysts, the US economy grew at an unexpected 3.7% during the same period.
International credit assessor Moody’s Investors Service cut its India growth forecast by half a percentage point from the 7.5% it estimated earlier to 7% due to below-normal monsoon rain and the resultant impact on rural demand. The government expects GDP to expand at a minimum 8.1% in 2015-16. The International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank have forecast growth of 7.5% and 7.8%, respectively.
So far, the rainfall deficit in east and northeast India is 13% and central India 9%. South peninsular India has a rainfall deficit of 20% and north-west a surplus of 1%.
The country will receive only 84% of the 50-year average rainfall in the second half of the June-September monsoon season this year, the weather forecaster said.
Monsoon rainfall is a crucial element of economic growth in India, where more than half the farmland is rain-fed. In 2014-15, deficit rain during the kharif (monsoon crop) season and unseasonal showers ahead of the winter harvest led to a drop in foodgrain production, but the fourth advanced estimates released by the agriculture ministry earlier this month showed that the impact of deficit monsoon was less than earlier estimates.
The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been striving to quicken growth in Asia’s third-largest economy since it took office in May last year, promising a spending boost and moving to clear up a regulatory logjam that has held up large infrastructure projects.
In its annual report released last week, the Reserve Bank of India said the growth outlook for the Indian economy is improving gradually as business confidence remains robust, even as it reiterated its GDP growth forecast of 7.6% in 2015-16, up from 7.2% reported in 2014-15. The central bank, however, looks at gross value added at basic prices for measuring the economic growth against the internationally comparable measure of GDP at market prices.
Data separately released by the Controller General of Accounts showed the government exhausted 69.3% of its fiscal deficit target for the current fiscal within the first four months (April-July) against 61.2% during the same period a year ago.
While non-plan expenditure jumped to 33.8% of the allocation during April-July period, from 30.5% during the same period a year ago, growth in plan expenditure was substantial, at 33.9% of target, against 23% during the same period last year, signalling more focus on spending that creates durable assets.
In the past, the news reports usually reported Y-o-Y data and provided commentary on that basis, with Q-o-Q data being mentioned as a secondary item. This time, they've been reversed. It appears to be a result of the financial press confusing itself between how data is reported by different countries. Considering we report data Y-o-Y, it makes more statistical sense to look at that basis rather an attempt an artificial Q-o-Q comparison between two figures that do not share a numerical relationship. We do not report GDP growth on a sequential quarterly basis, as say, the US or Japan does.arshyam wrote:Isn't GDP growth reported YoY, i.e. compare current quarter to the same quarter in the previous year, so as to account for seasonal changes? Why are all the reports stressing QoQ growth rate declined with no mention of the YoY comparison?
There is nothing "typical" about any such phenomenon. There were as many cases of an "increase" in Q1 compared to Q4, especially in periods where we saw acceleration. The "base" of income doesnt matter in any case, we are talking about the delta.Suraj wrote:GDP data is reported on a y-o-y basis. Q1 GDP typically comes in lower than prior fiscal Q4 data. It's higher than the 6.7% in Q1 last fiscal year, which is a fairly high base. 7% on top of 6.7% in the middle of a parliamentary logjam and a drought situation in early summer is quite a strong performance. The Q4 vs sequential Q1 data is a result of companies closing their books at the end of the year and therefore trying to complete everything pending on time. If you look back at GDP data during the 2000s, there were several instances where Q1 data was 2-3% lower than the sequentially prior Q4 data. If anything, a 0.5% difference suggests economic activity is less cyclical in nature now, compared to before when the bulk of the output growth came in Q3 and Q4, while Q1 was historically the 'quiet period' before the monsoon-derived economic data was available starting Q2.
Actually they should always be "specific", not in the realm of "India will regain past glory"Suraj wrote:Define real reforms as you see them, and please be specific.
While I am not a great fan of the mass media, they arent reporting QoQ numbers at all. they are reporting the YoY growth released by CSO, and comparing against the YoY growth for the previous quarter. This is an apt analysis - high frequency data is largely used to map trends. So comparing the growth rate in Q1 2015 makes sense against the previous quarter, rather than Q1 2014, which happened a full year back and doesnt depict as much by the way of a trend as the near term (Q4 2014) data.arshyam wrote:Isn't GDP growth reported YoY, i.e. compare current quarter to the same quarter in the previous year, so as to account for seasonal changes? Why are all the reports stressing QoQ growth rate declined with no mention of the YoY comparison?
Thats simply not true - VP Singh, Laloo, Mulayam are all instances. Not as successful as Modi, but many have used a political base in the states to create national roles for themselves.Suraj wrote:Therefore, it is very much a systemic change - politicians who master their state level political economy, and use that to assert their chance to prosper in national politics.
Again, this isnt unique. Congress for long periods have had very strong and secure centre. They have also had very strong regional satraps - from Kamaraj to VEerendra Patil to Sharad Pawar to YSR to Gogoi. They never devolved powers to cities. BJP shows no such inclnation either.Suraj wrote:The process of change begins at the center, and requires strong consolidation of state/center politics before the constitution can be amended to delegate fiscal and administrative powers to the city level. That is exactly what is happening with the BJP now. For the first time in decades, we've a strong central leadership, building upon several strong state level leaderships by the same party, as opposed to a national political party working with a patchwork of regional state parties. If you're ever going to see any of the delegation of fiscal powers to cities, it's going to happen on the back of what the BJP is doing today.
There's no statistically meaningful delta here; Q-o-Q comparisons made on Y-o-Y data depend on two sets of independent data series for Q4 and Q1. Q4->Q1 sequential output is almost always negative, usually by a very big margin because Q1 is typically the lowest output quarter and Q3 or Q4 is the biggest, in absolute terms.somnath wrote:There is nothing "typical" about any such phenomenon. There were as many cases of an "increase" in Q1 compared to Q4, especially in periods where we saw acceleration. The "base" of income doesnt matter in any case, we are talking about the delta.
Irrelevant. The news you quoted is the CSO/MOSPI data, not calendar year figures from OECD, with whatever other details they assume.somnath wrote:https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=350#
(Q1 in this series is our Q4, and Q2 is our Q1).
I think we've firmly established that you're the one man negative nellie brigade while I'm the 'bhakt' Remember, that characterization will stick to you regardless of what you think of the fairness of it.somnath wrote:In any case, the reported number today was 0.4-0.5% below analyst consensus. Add to it the fact that this is the new series (ie, "7 is the same as 5" ), the trend is disappointing. Rest of it, well, if you want to think this is a jolly good show, well,, "dil ko bahlane ke liye ghalib, khayal accha hai"!
And what are the parameters of success ? Lets see:somnath wrote:The list is long
1. GST
2. Labour law reform
3. Financial sector reform, starting with FSLRC, going on to PSU banks
4. A viable plan for tackling NPAs on bank books
5. Clarity on tax policis across the board - especially retro tax
The above 5 (even GST in its current moth eaten version) would be a start.
False. Lalloo and Mulayam were creatures of coalition quota accommodation, not state leadership groomed by the same central party. They owe their presence at the centre at one time, entirely to the calculus of an election, and not to any attempt to groom them up at all. The present bears it out - they've both gone back to being state level satraps.somnath wrote:Thats simply not true - VP Singh, Laloo, Mulayam are all instances. Not as successful as Modi, but many have used a political base in the states to create national roles for themselves.
Fiscal power devolution to cities can only come about if the centre and state are led by parties with common synergy, ideally the same party, whose leadership sees value in increasing urban fiscal autonomy, and has the legislative means to do so via constitutional amendment.somnath wrote:But the point wasnt that. It was about politicians not being willing to devolve power to cities. Unless we have legislative sanction to devolve powers, the top talent in parties will aspire for the CMs post, not the mayor's. Incumbent CMs have no incentive to have high profile Mayors, especially in large states (Mah, WB, Karnataka) - as these guys could overshadow them in terms of profile and future progression. Hence the change has to start with legislative devolution.
... which was before maybe 90% of BRF was born. The last time they could claim that was the 1970s. Despite the 1985 result, they didn't even complete that term at the centre, which isn't a demonstration of strong anything.somnath wrote:Again, this isnt unique. Congress for long periods have had very strong and secure centre.
You're providing examples from across ~50 years. I mean right now. How many strong leaders do they have ? Three of your 5 examples are very much dead, and one of them has been dead since well before I was born, and I'm not quite a spring chicken... What's more, Kamaraj is a very good example of NOT making it up the party - he was the head of the Syndicate during the split.somnath wrote:They have also had very strong regional satraps - from Kamaraj to VEerendra Patil to Sharad Pawar to YSR to Gogoi. They never devolved powers to cities. BJP shows no such inclnation either.
How do you know that? Seems a shame if we don't do it for even our smart city. Doesn't seem very VFM is you ask me. The private sector is doing 4G etc anyway why does the government have to get involved with everything. Do things the private sector can not do.amit wrote:From a cost perspective last mile fibre is not yet feasible in India. What would be more effective is good quality 4G service with a combination of base towers and small cells antenna
Not at all, its completely fair - by choice and profession, I am (like most professionals in this area) sceptical by nature. "Bhakts" on the other hand, ummm, well are bhakts. Which is why they say such stuff:Suraj wrote:I think we've firmly established that you're the one man negative nellie brigade while I'm the 'bhakt' Remember, that characterization will stick to you regardless of what you think of the fairness of it.
Did you see the data? Do you handle/study this data, even as a hobby? Do you know what OECD does (is it a source of past stats)? the India data on the OECD site has one source - CSO, India. The data given is exactly what the CSO publishes every quarter - OECD presents them in calendar year form, ie, the Jan-Mar qtr is depicted as Q1, and not Q4 - to be consistent across all economies.Suraj wrote: Irrelevant. The news you quoted is the CSO/MOSPI data, not calendar year figures from OECD, with whatever other details they assume.
One, that is logically/mathematically wrong. We are comparing growth rates, not aboslute GDP values from one qtr to another.Suraj wrote:There's no statistically meaningful delta here; Q-o-Q comparisons made on Y-o-Y data depend on two sets of independent data series for Q4 and Q1. Q4->Q1 sequential output is almost always negative, usually by a very big margin because Q1 is typically the lowest output quarter and Q3 or Q4 is the biggest, in absolute terms.
It is up to the govt to find ways of getting legislations through. Whether through PArliament (GST), or through states (where BJP rules some of the most industrialised states now). Political issues are as much, in fact maybe less, of an inexcusable excuse for them as they were for UPA.Suraj wrote:* GST. Never tabled before in Parliament. Tabled in the current Lok Sabha. Affected by filibustering.
* Labour law isn't even something best dealt with at central level but at state level, just as LAB is. In fact, that's something you yourself asserted. There *have* been substantial labour law reforms in Rajasthan. It's for other states to come up with their own laws if they wish to be competitive.
the question isnt who is heading a committee (this govt's tax committe is headed by an ex judge as well). The issue is do the recos make sense? In terms of bringing regulatory clarity, simplifying approvals and bringing in clearer rules on consumer protection - many of the recos are very sound. It is a roadmap of financial sector reforms -if the govt thinks not, they should lay out an alternative one dealing with the same issues!Suraj wrote:* FSLRC is NOT a committee that the government is obligated to listen to. It is not a constitutional body, but a very recent ad hoc creation of the last government near its end. It's headed not even by an economist, but by a former supreme court judge. Accepting the FSLRC report is not a barometer of reform, but one of institutionalizing an ad hoc body of questionable validity.
I have mentioned this many times earlier. One, capitalisaiotn - they have provided for less than 20% of the requirement yet. Autonomy in operations - zero movement there. Getting a HoldCo structure for all PSBs to raise more capital - no movement in that either.Suraj wrote:Define viable plan. Such open-ended statements are far too convenient for your debating position where you simply say 'this is not good enough' to any progress.
Very simple. Take a call, and then formalise it by law. If the govt is against retrospective taxation, they should go ahead and repeal it, not do the cop out ("we will not do it in the future") that PC did, without changing the law. If they think MAT is applicable on FPIs, they should say it and codify it. Not say it, then suspend it, then appoint a committee that would tell the govt to repeal it.Suraj wrote:Define clarity.
No, that's far too convenient for you. I'll let ad hominems and snark as a posting style pass, provided you therefore become the diametric opposite construct - the negative nellie. You don't get to conveniently portray yourself as the voice of critical reason while simultaneously indulging in snark. That would make you a troll, and you're well versed with the location of the forum exit in that case. Either you take it on the chin just as you dish it out, or you accept never to use such language. Your choice.somnath wrote:Not at all, its completely fair - by choice and profession, I am (like most professionals in this area) sceptical by nature. "Bhakts" on the other hand, ummm, well are bhakts. Which is why they say such stuff:
You're way out of line making such a demand of anyone posting on this forum. The next time you even imply any such thing, you'll be summarily banned. It's really quite simple - we'll simply apply your logic upon you, because you're posting about something that's not what you do in real life. Your presence here is a privilege. You either post in an independent capacity as an individual without judging anyone else, including me, or you can see yourself out. Again, your choice.somnath wrote:Obviously, you neither know the data at the tip of your fingers (as someone dealing with Indian econ would), nor did you have the curiousity to go through the data (as an enthusiast would).
It's to be expected considering your negative position that you'll not even see the fact that a bill was even finally agreed upon and introduced, as an accomplishment. This was done within a year, something three separate administrations couldn't get done over the course of 15 years. "I don't care about the past, if it hasn't happened to perfection as I deem it to be, then it's a failure" is simply the reverse of bhakt - the the one who will only post the negative.somnath wrote:It is up to the govt to find ways of getting legislations through. Whether through PArliament (GST), or through states (where BJP rules some of the most industrialised states now). Political issues are as much, in fact maybe less, of an inexcusable excuse for them as they were for UPA.
A partial acceptance of the recommendations is exactly what the government did. What basis do you have to claim otherwise ?somnath wrote:the question isnt who is heading a committee (this govt's tax committe is headed by an ex judge as well). The issue is do the recos make sense? In terms of bringing regulatory clarity, simplifying approvals and bringing in clearer rules on consumer protection - many of the recos are very sound. It is a roadmap of financial sector reforms -if the govt thinks not, they should lay out an alternative one dealing with the same issues!
States cannot "customize" the law the way they want it. The provisions of the central law will prevail and override any state law. The 2013 law is the standing law to govern article 31. I think - AGAIN - our penchant to treat ALL of India as a unitary, where one law could work for all is a major flaw. The 2013 law should be scrapped and replaced by a mechanism to address redressal and justice issues - without undue encumbrances on the states right to acquire land. The govt by backing out has sent a real negative signal, regardless of how they spin it. The damage is done. The 2013 bill stays!somnath wrote: On LAB, just like Labour reforms, the govt should quickly pass the buck on to the states. Let the states customise the law the way they want it.
Concurrent List / List IIIFalling under exclusive domain of the individual State Governments and Union territories, and from which the Central Government is specifically excluded.
For example, the following are entirely states list:Subjects falling under the domain of both the Central as well as the State Governments and about which each can independently promulgate laws and lay down rules.
On the other hand, highways, railways etc are in the Union List. This means that even if there was some sort of national law, states can obstruct eminent domain by claiming primacy on rights over land. It also suggests states themselves are best to implement any sort of LAB, rather than the center. The center can more effectively obstruct acquisition, than facilitate it. States are better positioned to facilitate acquisition.Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.
Land revenue, including the assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation of revenues.
Not clear what you mean, let's see if this is it?somnath wrote:So comparing the growth rate in Q1 2015 makes sense against the previous quarter, rather than Q1 2014, which happened a full year back and doesnt depict as much by the way of a trend as the near term (Q4 2014) data.
Boss do you have any idea how much it costs to instal last mile fibre to the home? It ranges anything from $35-$50 per five meters. That is discounting the cost the has to go into building the fibre broadband network by a NetCo which in a city like Delhi or Mumbai would cost several billion dollars. It will eventually happen but which Indian household or rather how many Indian households would be willing to fork out anything in the region of $500-$600 dollars to get the fibre to their homes from the nearest landing point?Theo_Fidel wrote:How do you know that? Seems a shame if we don't do it for even our smart city. Doesn't seem very VFM is you ask me. The private sector is doing 4G etc anyway why does the government have to get involved with everything. Do things the private sector can not do.amit wrote:From a cost perspective last mile fibre is not yet feasible in India. What would be more effective is good quality 4G service with a combination of base towers and small cells antenna
Hopefully this hasn't been posted before.Karthik Muralidharan (Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego) speaks with Arvind Subramanian (Chief Economic Adviser, Government of India) on a broad set of issues ranging from the uniqueness of the Indian development model, the political economy of reforms, reducing factor misallocation in the economy, enhancing State capacity, financing India's infrastructure needs, to the implications of the Fourteenth Finance Commission, improving the design of social welfare programmes, and climate change.
But this glass half empty, glass half full all depends upon your standard really - before after, compared to the best, compared to someone else, compared to the neighbour; there are so many different ways of making these comparisons, it’s a tricky business.
Although the management of land is with the state and so is most acquisition in practice, the bill is largely about acquisition by the holder of eminent domain, i.e the center, who has this exclusive domain rights. All such rights and limitations in its execution by the state would be governed by the laws of the center. Any state law shall not contravene the central provisions. To elaborate on some of the key impeding aspects of the 2013 law and something the States cannot contravene.Suraj wrote:That depends on whether the particular item that's in the state law is in the State List/List II or concurrent list/List III, right ?
As most of us who have seen both of your avatars can attest - you were a 'bhakt' of the earlier government in your previous avatar, now transformed into a 'professional sceptic' of the current one. It would be facile to pretend that the change of government in between had nothing to do with this magical transformation.somnath wrote:Not at all, its completely fair - by choice and profession, I am (like most professionals in this area) sceptical by nature. "Bhakts" on the other hand, ummm, well are bhakts.
You are largely correct. But this is India, a lot can happen "despite" the law. One, there are exclusions refined where "eminent domain" will prevail even under the current law. Two, state governments can frame rules on that can be overarching, eg, take an exclusion (say, irrigation project) and expand the ambit to include development along the project as part of the original irrigation project itself.ShauryaT wrote:The 2013 land bill is the law governing the operative part of Article 31, that governs eminent domain, an exclusive preserve of the center. IOW: It becomes virtually impossible to acquire land under the law for public use to be delivered by private bodies.
The good professor is saying something thats ad oculos! Economics is largely a study of developements at the margin.A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Thanks, KrishnaK, if it was posted before, I missed it.
Very relevant to this thread:
But this glass half empty, glass half full all depends upon your standard really - before after, compared to the best, compared to someone else, compared to the neighbour; there are so many different ways of making these comparisons, it’s a tricky business.
One, either the data is "strong", with "reduced cyclicality" etc - in which case there is nothing to beat up the Congress for, and more importantly (from a markets standpoint), there is no reason for a continuous public pleading for rate cuts.amit wrote: Any economic data that this current government is churning out is directly affected by the directionless economic management over the past five years. The current government's policies have not had time to show up in economic data. And this is not even taking into consideration the obscurantist position taken by the Congress and other opposition parties with regard to policy reform in the Rajya Sabha where they have a majority.
As of now, for Coal, auction is the only way - it was dictated by the Supreme Court in an order. For telecom licenses, after the 2 G licenses were cancelled by the court (with lots of gratuitous comments by it on how auctions are the best way to allocate natural resources etc), the then govt decided on the current mode of auctions.Hari Seldon wrote:Quick query for dhaga regulars...
Was the auction mechanism for the Coalblocks and 2G spectrum a one-off thing or is institutionalized as THE way to proceed when it comes to allocating national resources for private development?
TIA.
The previous government's disastrous regressive policies like MNREGA et al. which left us broke were vociferously defended back then. Now the current govt. is derided for apparently doing "more of the same" (which isn't true) and not doing enough on the ease of business and other reforms front (things which were never even attempted by the previous govt., nor were on any stated long term agenda). It is quite hilarious to be honest.Arjun wrote:As most of us who have seen both of your avatars can attest - you were a 'bhakt' of the earlier government in your previous avatar, now transformed into a 'professional sceptic' of the current one. It would be facile to pretend that the change of government in between had nothing to do with this magical transformation.
I didnt think that the overall policies of the previous govt were as bad as the popular press would have us to believe (in the last 3 years), and I dont think that the current govt is as miraculous as its "cheerleaders" would have us believe either.Arjun wrote:As most of us who have seen both of your avatars can attest - you were a 'bhakt' of the earlier government in your previous avatar, now transformed into a 'professional sceptic' of the current one. It would be facile to pretend that the change of government in between had nothing to do with this magical transformation.
The BJP supported NREGA when it was passed in Parliament. And the current govt has maintained (in fact increased) allocations to NREGA, and in fact has been at pains to clarify that they are "retaining and improving" upon the programme.nachiket wrote: The previous government's disastrous regressive policies like MNREGA et al. which left us broke were vociferously defended back then.
I had already commented on this canard earlier http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1891364somnath wrote: The BJP supported NREGA when it was passed in Parliament. And the current govt has maintained (in fact increased) allocations to NREGA, and in fact has been at pains to clarify that they are "retaining and improving" upon the programme.
Why on earth not ? It's the government's business to demand them, and the RBI's business to decide when and whether to make them. It's no different from asking for a pay hike every chance you can make a legitimate claim. If the global economic situation, benign inflationary conditions and a chance to refinance billions in loans through a rate cut presents itself, GoI can and should demand it day in and day out. It's Rajan's business to decide whether or not to do so. This isn't a question of waiting until mealtime to ask for food.somnath wrote:there is no reason for a continuous public pleading for rate cuts.
They very much deserved their crushing defeat, and then some.somnath wrote:in which case there is nothing to beat up the Congress for
How cute! I suppose it is also the govt's business to gerrymander a majority for the whole thing by setting up a committee with four rubber stamping baboons flexing their biceps rather than their grey cells to do by stealth what they cannot do by fiat!It's the government's business to demand them, and the RBI's business to decide when and whether to make them. It's no different from get a pay hike