Ram:
I am glad you replied after applying brakes to the spin machine this time. I was having a hard time imagining you looking like a 'latum' ( top) :-). I know I asked a complex questions. But mine was a response based not merely on this issue but the myriads of others as well that we see in the media thrown around with little information to compare it against. In that these numbers mean nothing to the lay people like myself, Dilip's assertion to the contrary not withstanding. Not only do they not make any absolute sense, they do not provide any comparative information either, because the circumstances and factors are are very different. For example, can flood inflicted loss estimates in Assam be compared meaningfully with Bondho loss estimates or corruption related estimates or a variety of such other losses. I will get back the topic later when I get a chance. Gotta go now. c-da At 1:27 PM -0500 9/6/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: >C'da, > >I will try and answer the best I can: > > ** Does it mean that the 'sorkar' lost revenue? If so, which > sorkar, Assam or Central? > >Yes, obviously. Loss of revenue by the Sorkor will force them to >borrow or go for deficit financing. Both sorkars. As for the Center, >more than likely, they must have already pegged Assam down for >diminishing returns every successive year (on any revenues they >expect) by just looking at recent history of bandhs, chaos, insurgency >and corruption - so I don't think they are hurting that much. > > ** 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? > >I don't think one views this as money evaporating or not. It just >means that the 'normal' opportunity that existed before, doesn't >exist. It means business loss (state govt. or otherwise), loss in >productivity, and loss in services. > > ** Does it mean productivity amounting to that much did not take place? > >That would be my guess. > > ** Does it mean the numbers are a combination of some or all of the > above? > >I would think so. > >>and explain what the numbers that have been thrown around are telling us. > >C'da, I have seen a number of different studies similar to this. They >all claim that the loss to the state in crores. Now, whether its 41 >crs. or 2 crores. If one were to take Pranjal's contention that there >have been 100 bondhos so far this year, that would amount tp 200 >crores already ( at 2 crores a pop). BTW. Pranjal's number can be >verified. > >So, what do the numbers mean? To me it means Assam is losing few >crores of RS every bondho. It means that politicians, intellectuals, >advisors, insurgents really don't care of any long term effects of >such bondhos. > >The overriding theme seems to be, as long as we get what we want, to >hell with the rest........ It is no wonder why localized and often >internal matters concerning a small groups are given state-wide >publicity to make bondhos pervasive. > >The people and the state lose either way - whether the bandh was/was >not successful in getting the grievances redressed. So, few people >come out on top at huge expenses to the state. > >One huge expense to the state during bandhs is maintening law & order, >police bondobasth etc. > >Maybe others can weigh in to answer your questions. I >Without any number crunching, one can safely bet that bondhos cause >huge financial losses just looking at the big picture. > >--Ram > > > > > >On 9/6/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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
