The effort of the blog How the Other Half Lives in trying to know the "other half" is no doubt laudable. But at times the kind of questions posed there, however sincere they may be, seem naive and ineffective.
This one, for example - Also, why is it acceptable, even today, that a tribal district can be deprived of electricity, but the island city of Bombay gets a nearly uninterrupted supply?
And they often generate simplistic and amusing replies such as the below.
Simple. Because the island city of Bombay pays for the electricity and the tribal district does not. and
Because the island city pays for it, and using their supply of electricity generates a considerable portion of the country’s income taxes. Taxes that incidentally go towards funding free electicity for a bunch of mooching subsidised farmers, and rural localities.
But no. Lets stop the march of progress, go for equity, and kill Mumbai’s productivity so that villages can run fans all day long, without paying for it. That’s a *much* better idea.
Why wasn’t it done for 57 years, even post liberalization? Because one of the beautiful things about a free market is that for actions to take place, you need incentive. Governments, having no incentive or accountability, will not act.
Note the "a bunch of mooching subsidised farmers". Heh. No. That's not offensive and all. That's plainly hilarious.
And why should I not be convinced that there is an argumentation crisis?
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
2 comments:
Over the years, I have developed a quote: "Never underestimate stupidity." I always felt that there ought to be a lower bound for a short-sighted, emotionally charged (in other words "stupid") argument. But over the years, I am beginning to understand that there is no such lower bound.
The way the arguments are made, chances are if you try rebutting them, you'll be accused of endorsing free electricity to farmers and that you are a pseudo-secular, communist old foggy :-)
Hehe.. I know. I can vouch for that.
Post a Comment