Thursday, August 02, 2007

Catch-22 Economics

Murugesh writes in:

What do we do to change the scenario. BTW, in US,is it possible to get a maid servant.

Can you find out a solution to start for such issues. (I mean to bridge the both sides of India). you can blog on that. try to search for really practical solution.


I wish I knew the solution boss. We have an eminent economist for a PM, and even he is struggling.

Rich and poor are bound to happen in a classical capitalist system. For sure, there will be people who make more money than others, but the classical capitalist system provides avenues for the poor to make money. Getting them to depend on dole from the rich really does not help them. Because, the rich give when it is possible for them to give. Since it's not always possible to do so, one day this charity would stop and then the problem would persist. Instead if they are given a chance to work, to be employed then at least they have some skill to trade in exchange for money, thereby getting them to a milestone on this journey. Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime. (I think it's a Chinese proverb). And one thing is for sure, it might be a "low-fashioned" skill, and it might be illegal, but Anarkali is providing a skill to society, for which she is compensated. Through the years, she probably will see that her skill is not worth the same compensation as someone her age who went to school. Hopefully that would make her force her kids go to school even when the money is not there.

I would love to say that the population is also to blame, (Again, Anarkali's family has 7 children, i.e. more than the total number of first cousins that I have), but her parents have no incentive to have a small family. I can bet, not all their siblings survived childhood, and I would like to say its a fair assumption that not all of Anarkali's siblings have survived. When there is no guarantee that all their children will survive, there is no incentive to a small family. We have to improve the quality of public health care for the poorest of poor and much as I would like to try, I am not an expert. (On this subject, do check out Abhinand's blog and his work.) In the end it all boils down to treating every one the same, regardless of economic standard. If there are equal opportunities for every one, things will start to improve.

Most of the barriers though are in the minds of people. Human beings, being the only species with the ability to think (or so they think), are prone to pre-judging people they do not know. It's easier for them to attach a label (of economic bearing, religion, sexual preference, whatever) to a new person as an excuse to not associate with them, as against getting to know them, learning about how they live, their lifestyle. By attaching a label (or an adjective) they are blocking their minds from improving the status quo. Only those with a genuine incentive would do that, and there is no incentive provided by society since society is composed of the same pre-judging people who have no incentive to do so.

And no matter how hard I try, I cannot change the way people think. That can only come with time.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

First we need to look how other developed nations have managed to do that.

We just need to reframe our policies similar to those countries. Its like reverse engineering.

Key driver for progress is education. How Germany has managed to build a free education system. On a long run things will change.

You got to see Rajnikanth's Sivaji or Nayak.