Comments on: Sense And Swami http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/15/sense-and-swami/ Issues & insights Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:53:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: ND http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/15/sense-and-swami/#comment-44756 ND Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:40:30 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/15/sense-and-swami/#comment-44756 Using swami's contorted logic is simply an obtuse way to ask the question which actually matters here: should India have population control policies? If so, what should they look like? Wouldn't it be a lot more productive to argue about what India's demographic policies should be rather than trying to: a) figure out what the hell Swami is saying b) debating whether he is right Just a suggestion. Using swami’s contorted logic is simply an obtuse way to ask the question which actually matters here: should India have population control policies? If so, what should they look like?

Wouldn’t it be a lot more productive to argue about what India’s demographic policies should be rather than trying to:
a) figure out what the hell Swami is saying
b) debating whether he is right

Just a suggestion.

]]> By: Chandra http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/15/sense-and-swami/#comment-44653 Chandra Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:12:20 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/15/sense-and-swami/#comment-44653 I think the title of the post says it all - they don't go together. Relative status has nothing to do with demographic dividends. If we have all old people with average age of 50, say, having mostly poor and some rich (relative status) won't provide demographic dividend! The dividend is about the age of the population itself and nothing about the income distribution of the population. Rich countries can have demographic dividend too if the birth rates are high and the opposite can be true in poor countries. So why don't we have perpetual poverty to give us a perpetual economic advantage? Apparently, our economic policy makers since the 60s (including Nehru) were geniuses! The whole rational and tone of Swami's article is stupid. I think the title of the post says it all - they don’t go together.

Relative status has nothing to do with demographic dividends. If we have all old people with average age of 50, say, having mostly poor and some rich (relative status) won’t provide demographic dividend! The dividend is about the age of the population itself and nothing about the income distribution of the population. Rich countries can have demographic dividend too if the birth rates are high and the opposite can be true in poor countries.

So why don’t we have perpetual poverty to give us a perpetual economic advantage? Apparently, our economic policy makers since the 60s (including Nehru) were geniuses! The whole rational and tone of Swami’s article is stupid.

]]> By: Gaurav http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/15/sense-and-swami/#comment-44552 Gaurav Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:14:21 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2006/11/15/sense-and-swami/#comment-44552 " Swami is not comparing people in India vis-a-vis people in China. But within India and within China. The relative status of an Indian vis-a-vis other Indians will be benefited by the demographic dividends. That is what Swami wants to convey. " I doubt it is so, to me the impression is that he was talking about advantage with respect to global competition. This by the way is one of favourite cliche of Friedman (Tom that is )school of economist. "Of course one can come up with estimates of limited scope but they are only based on present conditions and not possible better conditions. But no modeler worth his salt can confidently provide estimates of that!" Again it is true (hence notriety of malthus), but the fact remains that we have to take decisions based on data we have I think there should be no doubt that Indian performance on human resource development is underwhelming. What is more considering the current political atmosphere and incentive in general towards one upmanship, I dont know whether any "miracle" is happening soon. Regards ” Swami is not comparing people in India vis-a-vis people in China. But within India and within China. The relative status of an Indian vis-a-vis other Indians will be benefited by the demographic dividends. That is what Swami wants to convey.
”

I doubt it is so, to me the impression is that he was talking about advantage with respect to global competition. This by the way is one of favourite cliche of Friedman (Tom that is )school of economist.

“Of course one can come up with estimates of limited scope but they are only based on present conditions and not possible better conditions. But no modeler worth his salt can confidently provide estimates of that!”

Again it is true (hence notriety of malthus), but the fact remains that we have to take decisions based on data we have
I think there should be no doubt that Indian performance on human resource development is underwhelming. What is more considering the current political atmosphere and incentive in general towards one upmanship, I dont know whether any “miracle” is happening soon.

Regards

]]>