Comments on: The Full Monty http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/ Issues & insights Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:18:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: dsylexic http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-270319 dsylexic Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:56:37 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-270319 "Nitin, I think it’s but selfish for urban India to have a sense of entitlement to the cheapest and lowest at the cost of others in rural India". this is nonsense.your entitlement is to have the best deal for yourself.you are only hurting your rural brethren by trapping them in low productivity activities so that they can serve you urbanslickers. also,the farmers are evil people for taking advantage of people's hunger.how can they profit from my hunger.how can doctors profit from my sickness. /end of sarcasm “Nitin, I think it’s but selfish for urban India to have a sense of entitlement to the cheapest and lowest at the cost of others in rural India”.

this is nonsense.your entitlement is to have the best deal for yourself.you are only hurting your rural brethren by trapping them in low productivity activities so that they can serve you urbanslickers.

also,the farmers are evil people for taking advantage of people’s hunger.how can they profit from my hunger.how can doctors profit from my sickness.
/end of sarcasm

]]> By: Russell Nelson http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-238471 Russell Nelson Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:09:05 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-238471 In wartime the enemy seeks to stop your trade. Why would ANY nation erect barriers to trade? Trade barriers are insane, and India should unilaterally drop all barriers. You could sell the idea by saying "We want to import all that cheap subsidized American food." Maybe THAT would wake up Americans to the fact that our agriculture subsidies are a give-away to foreigners (oh, and also a destroyer of native agriculture). In wartime the enemy seeks to stop your trade. Why would ANY nation erect barriers to trade? Trade barriers are insane, and India should unilaterally drop all barriers. You could sell the idea by saying “We want to import all that cheap subsidized American food.” Maybe THAT would wake up Americans to the fact that our agriculture subsidies are a give-away to foreigners (oh, and also a destroyer of native agriculture).

]]> By: General http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-218554 General Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:52:48 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-218554 You work for dollars you buy your food with dollars! ===================================================== Ratan Tata, Narayan Murthy and Azim Premji are leading India to serfdom...... You work for dollars you buy your food with dollars!
=====================================================

Ratan Tata, Narayan Murthy and Azim Premji are leading India to serfdom……

]]> By: Ravikiran http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-215774 Ravikiran Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:38:04 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-215774 That is kind of true if you ignore the cost of feeding the farmer himself and his family. This cost does the reduce in proportion to his landholding, and if he is a subsistence farmer, it means by definition that any cut in the price will eat into this cost. That is kind of true if you ignore the cost of feeding the farmer himself and his family. This cost does the reduce in proportion to his landholding, and if he is a subsistence farmer, it means by definition that any cut in the price will eat into this cost.

]]> By: kuffir http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-214908 kuffir Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:04:02 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-214908 and you seem convinced higher productivity doesnt mean lower costs in this instance.. for subsistence farmers, labour costs, the most important component of agricultural inputs, are usually at negligible levels. and you seem convinced higher productivity doesnt mean lower costs in this instance.. for subsistence farmers, labour costs, the most important component of agricultural inputs, are usually at negligible levels.

]]> By: Ravikiran http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-212894 Ravikiran Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:19:34 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-212894 You are confusing productivity with cost of production. You are confusing productivity with cost of production.

]]> By: kuffir http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-212893 kuffir Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:17:23 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-212893 ravi kiran, 'A farmer who farms 20 acres using his tractor may have a lower productivity *per acre* than the subsistence farmer, but his total income will still be higher, because he has a larger number of acres.' my point exactly. but, please check nitin's response earlier: 'not all Indian farmers will go out of the market. Only those whose costs of production are higher than the world price will do so.' now, whose cost of production is likely to be lower than the world price? ravi kiran,

‘A farmer who farms 20 acres using his tractor may have a lower productivity *per acre* than the subsistence farmer, but his total income will still be higher, because he has a larger number of acres.’

my point exactly. but, please check nitin’s response earlier:
‘not all Indian farmers will go out of the market. Only those whose costs of production are higher than the world price will do so.’

now, whose cost of production is likely to be lower than the world price?

]]> By: Ravikiran http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-212749 Ravikiran Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:03:27 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-212749 Because when they are called "subsistence" farmers, it is not a joke. A farmer who farms 20 acres using his tractor may have a lower productivity *per acre* than the subsistence farmer, but his total income will still be higher, because he has a larger number of acres. The large farmer will be in a better position to absorb shocks to his income than the subsistence farmer. Because when they are called “subsistence” farmers, it is not a joke. A farmer who farms 20 acres using his tractor may have a lower productivity *per acre* than the subsistence farmer, but his total income will still be higher, because he has a larger number of acres. The large farmer will be in a better position to absorb shocks to his income than the subsistence farmer.

]]> By: kuffir http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-212450 kuffir Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:32:06 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-212450 ravikiran, i'd forgotten, almost, about this post. could you please elaborate on your comment? ravikiran,

i’d forgotten, almost, about this post. could you please elaborate on your comment?

]]> By: Ravikiran http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/comment-page-1/#comment-210991 Ravikiran Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:04:19 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/08/31/the-full-monty/#comment-210991 Oops.. I didn't realise that the blockquote tag wouldn't work what I meant was: "another flaw was that he seems to think most subsistence farmers are inefficient and they’d be the first to move out because of cheap exports. but the reality is that india’s subsistence or marginal/sub-marginal farmers are actually more productive per acre (it’s another matter that their holdings are always much lesser than an acre each) than those with larger holdings. you might not be able to believe this but the fao has been saying this for a long time. so, who’d actually survive? the subsistence farmer or the larger farmer? if we follow your argument, it’d mostly likey be the subsistence farmer, because he is the more efficient producer, than the larger farmer. " Wrong. try again. Oops.. I didn’t realise that the blockquote tag wouldn’t work what I meant was:
“another flaw was that he seems to think most subsistence farmers are inefficient and they’d be the first to move out because of cheap exports. but the reality is that india’s subsistence or marginal/sub-marginal farmers are actually more productive per acre (it’s another matter that their holdings are always much lesser than an acre each) than those with larger holdings. you might not be able to believe this but the fao has been saying this for a long time. so, who’d actually survive? the subsistence farmer or the larger farmer?

if we follow your argument, it’d mostly likey be the subsistence farmer, because he is the more efficient producer, than the larger farmer.
”

Wrong. try again.

]]>