Political capture and economic inequality

Oxfam briefing paper dated 20th January, 2014 says, inter alia, the following:

"Extreme economic inequality is damaging and worrying for many
reasons: it is morally questionable; it can have negative impacts on
economic growth and poverty reduction; and it can multiply social
problems. It compounds other inequalities, such as those between
women and men. In many countries, extreme economic inequality is
worrying because of the pernicious impact that wealth concentrations can
have on equal political representation. When wealth captures
government policymaking, the rules bend to favor the rich, often to the
detriment of everyone else. The consequences include the erosion of
democratic governance, the pulling apart of social cohesion, and the
vanishing of equal opportunities for all. Unless bold political solutions are
instituted to curb the influence of wealth on politics, governments will
work for the interests of the rich, while economic and political inequalities
continue to rise. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously
said, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in
the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’"

The paper talks about political capture by the stinkingly rich. Combination of wealth and political power is toxic to democratic governance. As a consequence, the rich, if they happen to be politically powerful, can get away with murder (please see the previous post).

Who is poor?

Project "Garibi Hatao" was undertaken in late sixties and early seventies with gusto. So, we may be excused if we suppose that there is no poverty in India now. Disappointingly, the Planning Commission keeps reminding us that there are still some poor people in India though their numbers are rapidly shrinking.

Consumption expenditure per capita of Rs.34 per day is enough to upgrade a city-dweller from poverty. When one can have a full meal for Re.1 near Jamma Masjid in Delhi, what and where is the problem? Why don't we lower the poverty bar to Re.1?

It is sad to hear Kapil Sibal and Digvijay Singh question Planning Commission's scholarly figures. How can they forget that our economist-PM is the Chairperson of the Planning Commission?

For now, Mr.Singh is maintaining his typical majestic silence. If the criticism against Planning Commission's 'erudite' figures becomes more shrill, we may expect him to reiterate his disassociation from the Commission of which he is only the chairperson. If he can so easily estrange himself from his own Cabinet, why not from the Commission? Keep it up, Mr.Prime Minister. As  the CNN IBN Hindu polls show, we continue to be in awe of you.

Argentina copies India

Montek Singh Ahluwalia forgot to copyright his intellectual thesis on poverty lines. His discovery that per-capita per-diem expenditure of Rs.28 in urban areas and Rs.22.50 in rural areas uplifts an Indian from poverty is too phenomenal to be forgotten ever.

Argentina has now stolen his magnum-opus and has stealthily declared that a six-peso food bill per day is all that is necessary to enable an Argentine to escape poverty. According to Economist, six Argentine pesos can fetch only one sweet biscuit.

We urge M.S.Ahluwalia to copyright his concept before other economies rush to banish poverty without acknowledging his contribution.