Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

businessinsider.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 187 posts

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#41

Post by shripadk »

peteretep wrote: post #27
shripadk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take liberty to correct your perspective: A demonetization move that directly affected livelihood of billion Indians, with a possibility of large-scale riots, but ended with only 100 deaths. I don't see how it cannot be termed a success. Can you think of any major move that directly affected the entire country but did not end in large scale riots? If you need to understand what a "hasty decision" means take a lo…

> I don't see how it cannot > be termed a success Has it actually cut corruption? If not, the last few days of pounding payment in Jodhpur trying to find working ATMs, and being stuck for 30m in queues when they finally got their money delivered all seems in vain. That, and, you know, the 100 deaths.

> Has it actually cut corruption?

Yes it has. It depends again on your perspective. Looks like you have only read news of 100 deaths but failed to read news of the many political babus, black money hoarders and tax evaders getting caught with huge amounts of cash (with both old and new notes).

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#42

Post by kranner »

GordonS wrote: post #36
nashashmi wrote: post #24

Have there been any studies on the impact to prices on staple foods? Because if everyone can afford food and basic items for living, does that mean the prices for these items will go sky high? Especially as supply will be short of demand?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Indian colleagues telling me that the India government sets maximum prices for certain basic foodstuffs, such as rice or flour?

That's only in so-called 'fair price shops'. In practical terms they run out of (or claim to run out of) foodgrains before demand is met. This subsidised material is then sold for a profit illicitly. The same scam happens in e.g. subsidised medicines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_distribution_system

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#43

Post by danharaj »

Every time UBI is brought up, vague arguments about inflation come up. However, I've never seen anyone cite economic literature that actually quantifies such an effect. It's just a claim justified by an understanding of economics 101. However: there's a reason why a study of economics doesn't end at the 101 level. Economics 101 is a grossly simplified toy facsimile of the actual capitalist economy.

There are professional economists who support UBI or at least experimenting with it. Am I supposed to believe that they never considered the vague and simplistic argument that can be posed with minimal effort in an Internet comment?

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#44

Post by kranner »

shripadk wrote: post #39
shabda wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take liberty to correct your perspective: A demonetization move that directly affected livelihood of billion Indians, but we don't know whether for good or for worse. I don't like Mr Modi, but I was cautiously optimistic the day it was announced. However over last two months, its been clear to me that no thought was put in the decision. If you want to look at a data driven journalism to the flip flops, you can s…

Then I'll take the liberty to correct your understanding of my comment: I spoke about: a move that directly affected livelihood of billion Indians, "with a possibility of large-scale riots". Since those large-scale riots did not happen it can be termed a success. Why am I talking about "large-scale riots"? Because the Opposition (even the Supreme Court of India) predicted large-scale riots: http://www.merinews.com/mo…

> Since those large-scale riots did not happen it can be termed a success.

You can't be serious.

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#45

Post by bryanlarsen »

nashashmi wrote: post #24

Have there been any studies on the impact to prices on staple foods? Because if everyone can afford food and basic items for living, does that mean the prices for these items will go sky high? Especially as supply will be short of demand?

Why would demand for staple foods shoot up? Sure, there's some hunger in India, but AFAICT most people are already getting most of the calories they need. If anything, I would would think demand for basic staples would go down as people switch away from the cheapest of foods to better ones.

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#47

Post by addicted »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #45
nashashmi wrote: post #24

Have there been any studies on the impact to prices on staple foods? Because if everyone can afford food and basic items for living, does that mean the prices for these items will go sky high? Especially as supply will be short of demand?

Why would demand for staple foods shoot up? Sure, there's some hunger in India, but AFAICT most people are already getting most of the calories they need. If anything, I would would think demand for basic staples would go down as people switch away from the cheapest of foods to better ones.

> Sure, there's some hunger in India, but AFAICT most people are already getting most of the calories they need.

I'm pretty sure this is very wrong.

Quick search brought up the following:

http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-fac...

> Hunger continues to take its largest toll in Southern Asia, which includes the countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The estimate of 276 million chronically undernourished people in 2014–16 is only marginally lower than the number in 1990– 92.

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#48

Post by shripadk »

rm2889 wrote: post #29
shripadk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take liberty to correct your perspective: A demonetization move that directly affected livelihood of billion Indians, with a possibility of large-scale riots, but ended with only 100 deaths. I don't see how it cannot be termed a success. Can you think of any major move that directly affected the entire country but did not end in large scale riots? If you need to understand what a "hasty decision" means take a lo…

Your metric for success seems to be "not enough people died relative to previous such moves, hence its a success", which is rather morbid. Also your point about "major move that directly affected the entire country but did not end in large scale riots" is vague in its definition of "major move". During the partition, people were forced to leave their homes, belongings, ALL material wealth in the name of religion/poli…

> Your metric for success seems to be "not enough people died relative to previous such moves, hence its a success", which is rather morbid.

Why is it "morbid"? Did you call out the OP for associating the death of a 100 people due to an economic move like demonetization morbid? If not, then why am I being singled out? Just because my opinion doesn't fit your narrative?

> Also your point about "major move that directly affected the entire country but did not end in large scale riots" is vague in its definition of "major move". During the partition, people were forced to leave their homes, belongings, ALL material wealth in the name of religion/politics/whatever and move to a different location in fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Does demonetization compare to this?

Yes it does. Because the OP was talking about "implementation" of the move and not about "intent". The displacement of people during the Partition was of a small percentage of the entire populace. Yet it was not managed properly at all. Did it not result in the death of close to 2 million people by some estimates? Or is the death of 2 million people due to Partition not as morbid as the death of 100 people due to demonetization?

According to me, demonetization should have resulted in large-scale riots. Even the Supreme Court of India concurred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/demonetisation-sc-q.... In other countries where demonetization took place there were large scale riots and huge political instability. Read up on Myanmar demonetization which led to large-scale riots leaving thousands of people dead.

The very fact it did not end in large-scale riots leads me to believe that it was a success. Whether there are any long term benefits to the move economically remains to be seen.

> During demonetization, among other things, all the honest Indian had to do was wait in long queues to exchange cash (which is not convenient by all means - its very very harrowing), and the dishonest Indian figured out how to convert their cash to the new currency through the black market.

And most of those converting their cash were caught and the rest are still being caught. Did you fail to read the news?

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#49

Post by gyey »

I don't see how they would afford this. Rough approximations show that even giving $20 a month to India's 900 million adult population would mean an annual expenditure of 216 billion dollars, more than 4 times the country's annual defence budget. Where does all this money come from? Increased taxes from the middle class (so that they pay $40 to get $20)?

Re: The Indian government is set to endorse Universal Basic Income

#50

Post by drabiega »

neilwilson wrote: post #18
aninhumer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no money is being created, it's being reallocated from other people, so it doesn't directly affect the money supply. The recipients are more likely to spend it, which creates some demand (and thus inflation), but it should still be less than the increase in spending power it provides them.

"Because no money is being created, it's being reallocated from other people, so it doesn't directly affect the money supply." And unfortunately that is bunkum. Money isn't stuff. If you take what is currently savings and put it into flow then you will get an increase in production - that is then effectively taken away and given to people who haven't earned it. The result is, over time, an increase in political press…

You recognize that you are no longer supporting the premise that BI will cause inflation, yes?

You seem to now be making the argument that altering the distribution in this way is unfair, but the whole point of BI from the point of view of a proponent is that it is an adjustment to balance out inherent systematic unfairness so I don't think you'll get very far with that line of argument.

Post reply on HN