India floats the idea of a universal basic income

I agree with the second part of this exceprt from the article, first having already been taken care of -- It will take time before 1.3bn Indians receive such a transfer. Keen as Mr Subramanian is, he concludes that UBI is “a powerful idea whose time even if not ripe for implementation is ripe for serious discussion.”

While I agree with you on the perks of a UBI, I think India is not yet in a place where UBI could work.

As mentioned in the article, the pay would be a meagre Rs. 7000 per annum. To put it in perspective, I found it hard to keep my expenses per month to under Rs. 8000, living frugally as a student, with basically free housing and subsidized food.

Sure there are millions of people who would appreciate this sum and might gain some benefits from them, but it would be inconsequential to about 70-75% of the population. That's a lot of money wasted. It might br better to have focused welfare programs which would put this money to better use. For instance, government sponsored vocational training programs. India has a vast network of NGOs, and many of them have such programs. Another venue to invest this money might be on rural education systems. A disturbing number of them are not functional, where both teachers and students infrequently visit a shabby one room building to have free mid-day meals (I don't have any woes with this program, btw). Better infrastructure, better teacher training programs, are all venues that would benefit from the money. Ofcourse these venues are riddled with a corrupt administration which would substantially diminish the returns, but UBI distribution too might have similar problems.

Basically, in a country with this population, and with a huge wealth divide, I think UBI is a very ineffective welfare program.

> (by vibrant, I mean fast-developing)

Nice, you take a word I introduced to the conversation, explicitly redefined it in a way I wasn't using it, and then proceed to demand I prove your new definition. Why should I bother, if you're just going to change the way I was using a word and then tell me I'm sheeple?

And since you like statistics so much, population growth, a foundational element in economic growth, also stagnated in Sweden starting in the '80s. If the population stagnates, then of course you expect growth to stagnate. So not only are you missing the point and creating a strawman, you're also being hypocritical about your own patronising demands on 'looking at the data'. Likewise this crazy expectation that human lifespans just linearly expand with improved circumstances - but what would you expect when you're citing data from a source whose raison d'etre is specifically promoting the free market? Hardly a neutral source.

But I will leave you with this: economic growth isn't everything. That's the point of quality-of-life measures. People have a high quality of life in Sweden. Whereas China has recently had a rapidly-growing economy, and life sucks there. People escape it when they can. The gradient of the growth chart doesn't tell you much about freedom of expression or the happiness of citizens.

>Why should I bother, if you're just going to change the way I was using a word and then tell me I'm sheeple?

It doesn't really matter how you define it. What matters is that they have not improved much from the position they were at when they adopted social democracy, and the reason is because their rate of economic growth has stagnated.

The way to measure the success of a policy is to see how much a country has improved from the position it was at when it adopted the policy relative to other countries.

>And since you like statistics so much, population growth,

Gee why would anyone base their views on large-scale phenomena on statistical evidence!? Why don't I just base my ideas on what's culturally popular and which notions give me warming feelings!?

>If the population stagnates, then of course you expect growth to stagnate.

You're taking an amateur approach to this, in missing all sorts of facts to arrive at your predetermined conclusion. The fact is that per capita GDP growth has slowed, not just GDP growth. Moreover, wage growth has slowed, and wages are a per-capita measure.

>Likewise this crazy expectation that human lifespans just linearly expand with improved circumstances

There's no indication that it's a "crazy expectation". The point I was making is that there is no evidence that social democracy has actually made anything better in the countries where it has been adopted. The trends in place before the adoption of social democracy were superior to the trends that came into effect after its adoption. So there is no objective evidence to support your ideological inclinations.

>but what would you expect when you're citing data from a source whose raison d'etre is specifically promoting the free market?

There's absolutely no evidence that the source's raison d'etre is to promote the free market. It's entirely possible that they want to further public welfare, and have concluded, based on empirical evidence, that the free market is the best way to do that.

>But I will leave you with this: economic growth isn't everything. That's the point of quality-of-life measures. People have a high quality of life in Sweden. Whereas China has recently had a rapidly-growing economy, and life sucks there.

More bullshit logic indicative of an amateur approach to economics and society.

China is still extremely poor relative to the West. But people in China are FAR better off now than they were 30 years ago, and that's primarily down to the massive economic development the country has experienced. Wages growing by a factor of 4-5X is hugely important to quality of life.

Should I have the right to force someone into slavery\indentured servitude if they inadvertently sign their rights away?