On 9/26/07, Martin Senftleben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 26. September 2007 07:16 schrieb Biju Chacko: > > On 9/25/07, Srini Ramakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh boy :) > > > > This seems an accurate description of the lives of the > > poorest-of-the-poor. However, the socialist cliche "The rich are > > getting richer and the poor are getting poorer" never seems to be > > tested -- it always seems to be accepted as an axiom. > > > > Are there statistics to show that the percentage of poor people in > > the Indian population is increasing? > > That is not what is meant with that statement. It only says, that the > poor are getting poorer, i.e. their income decreases in relation to > actual cost of living, that increases faster than their "income". > Whether there are more or less poor people, is not part of the > statement. > With regard to the rich, it's the same thing: The number of truly rich > people isn't changing much, maybe it's even decreasing, but their > wealth increases faster than the cost of living. These are facts that > have been statistically proven. How exactly that is in India, I can't > say, however.
Fair enough, is it actually true that the income of the poor is not rising as fast as the cost of living? Or more importantly, is this indicative of a. Something fundamentally wrong with economic planning. ie increasing prosperity in Indian is superficial and is not reaching beyond a privilidged few. or b. It's a governance problem -- we don't have the safety net to care for the poor. That is, prosperity might not be superficial but we're leaving many behind. At that point, the numbers of the poor as a percentage of total population becomes helpful. If it's declining we need to focus more on the second issue otherwise both are important. SImply put, while a sad story may move people to act, hard data is needed to figure out *what* needs to be done. -- b
