Ram: >> Not to suggest here that the Bondhos don't have negative impacts on > society. They obviously do. > > But those numbers? I think they are mostly an attempt to look > 'scientific', meaning very little.
*** I opened your mail eagerly to see what, if any, are your explanations to suggest where my assessments were WRONG in the above. I made it quite clear that I might be missing something here. But I found nothing. There was NO spin on my part. But I find that you needed to spin what I proposed:-). So, maybe you should read what I wrotre once, more, and then address the questions I raise, and explain what the numbers that have been thrown around are telling us. c-da At 9:13 AM -0500 9/6/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: >C'da, > >That was one of the best spins I have heard all year. Inspite of the >fact that you do acknowledge that there could be negative effects of >bondhos, you seem to say that such numbers don't matter much since >(if) > >(a) its a loss to to State exchequer (as they don't produce anyway) >(b) to the Center (well - thats a good thing, since thats one more >strike against the Center ie. more bondhos the merrier, as its the >Center that hurts in the end). > >(just because we don't want to render unto Caesar, it surely doesn't >mean we would need to throttle ourselves first - a fast track to >self-destruction?) :) > >The State Govt. inept as you may think it is, does provide some >essential services to the common man. >Whether its releasing funds for retired teachers or releasing >fertilizers or seeds for the farmer, or pensions, or salaries (a lot >of which does go to to the lower strata) are all affected. > >The theory that bondhos will affect the receipts to the Center is also >flawed. The Center (right or wrong) receives a percentage of revenues >from the State. So, if the State's receipts are reduced, yes the >Center would also see a reduction, but the State will now have to >contend with a smaller portion too. > >Then there is another crucial factor: When receipts to the Center are >reduced, it tells the Center some particular industry (Tea/plywood) is >not doing that great, investments to such industries from the Center >could be reduced. > >Cost of bondhos is obviously in loss of productivity. We all know the >effects of that. > >There are some hidden costs too: like discouraging private investment >is a state plauged by bondhos every second day. That could lead to >lower employment rates in that sector. > >The fact is bondhos affect the state/people all around. Rs. 41 crores >per day may have been pulled from some hat (if thats what you want to >believe). > >Rest assured, the costs must be substantial. Prohibitive enough for >the people and intellectuals to recognize them. Prohibitive enough for >intellectuals to discourage bondhs and suggest other ways for people >to express grievances in ways OTHER than bandhs. And prohibitive >enough for intellectuals NOT to encourage bondhos on one pretext or >another. > >--Ram > > > > >On 9/6/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I am an economically challenged person. Don't understand the meaning >> of the numbers being cited. It does not matter about the magnitudes, >> the quantities, and the accuracy of the stats. But what in essence >> does it mean, when someone cites X-crores being lost in Y number of >> Bondhos and thus Assam is set beck by Z number of years? >> >> ** Does it mean that the 'sorkar' lost revenue? If so, which >> sorkar, Assam or Central? >> >> ** Does it mean that amount of money has evaporated or does it mean >> that exchange of goods and services estimated to be worth that much >> did not take place? >> >> ** Does it mean productivity amounting to that much did not >>take place? >> >> ** Does it mean the numbers are a combination of some or all of the >> above? >> >> The reasons for my asking are these: >> >> I think ( I am not sure obviously), the numbers do not tell us much. > > They would mean something substantial only when >PRODUCTIVITY of goods >> and services produced is impacted substantially, and when salary >> and profits are impacted. >> >> What is the worth of goods produced in Assam? Not much to begin with. >> >> Assam gets peanuts for its oil, paid as royalty for crude. The rest >> goes to the Center, doesn't it? The employees get paid anyway. >> >> The govt. and the lrgest employer does not produce anything--or >> almost nothing, anyway. So any value assigned to it would >>be a fiction. >> >> Commerece, exchange of goods in trade may suffer, consumption >> level may drop on those days of the Bondhos, but will be compensated >> by increases on the non-Bondho days. Again the employees >>will get paid >> anyway. >> >> > > Not to suggest here that the Bondhos don't have negative impacts on >> society. They obviously do. >> >> But those numbers? I think they are mostly an attempt to look > > 'scientific', meaning very little. >> >> >> So where am I wrong :-)? >> >> >> cm >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> assam mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org >> _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
