India Now the World's Fastest Growing Economy

[Frodo]

Not only that, but India could potentially see growth rates as high as 9% if it does the necessary reforms:

GDP data cements India’s position as fastest growing major economy

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cubby]

I don't care if it grows by 20% a year, Modi still sucks

Vote Congress 2019!

Rahul Gandhi is similar to Justin Trudeau and look how successful the latter has been. I'm sure things will work out for him too.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Friedman Economics works better then Keynesian economics

[Sbane]

Capitalism works, socialism does not. Hopefully the Congress doesn't get back into power for a long, long time.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Capitalism works, socialism does not. Hopefully the Congress doesn't get back into power for a long, long time.

[Intell]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

[Sbane]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

You got a citation for that?

Also the article quite clearly states increased investment has increased the rate of growth in India. Modi's government lifted the limit of FDI leading to increased capital inflows.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

You also said Carter's economy was better then Reagan's lol

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

You got a citation for that?

Also the article quite clearly states increased investment has increased the rate of growth in India. Modi's government lifted the limit of FDI leading to increased capital inflows.

Reducing economic nationalist measures is good policy, but I fail to see how it makes a case for capitalism vs socialism. Anyway, it looks like the current rise in investment is mostly from public spending - "There is yet to be any sign of a pick-up in private investment demand. Investment is also a very volatile component of growth. Sustainable recovery in investment is still some time away,” he said"

[RI]

Friedman Economics works better then Keynesian economics

Eh, how you attain long-run growth is entirely different than how you address short-run downturns. They're two very different things.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

You got a citation for that?

Also the article quite clearly states increased investment has increased the rate of growth in India. Modi's government lifted the limit of FDI leading to increased capital inflows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10211435/An-Uncertain-Glory-India-and-itsContradictions-by-Jean-Dreze-and-Amartya-Sen-review.html

Note: I've read An Uncertain Glory. It's really good.

[Sbane]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

You got a citation for that?

Also the article quite clearly states increased investment has increased the rate of growth in India. Modi's government lifted the limit of FDI leading to increased capital inflows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10211435/An-Uncertain-Glory-India-and-itsContradictions-by-Jean-Dreze-and-Amartya-Sen-review.html

Note: I've read An Uncertain Glory. It's really good.

Check out the per capita GDP of India in 2014-2015. It is comparable to large parts of Sub Saharan Africa so it should not be surprising that the human development is on par with that. And this is after the GDP growth of the last 10-15 years. More growth is needed to first raise those GDP levels to those of China or Brazil before you can start comparing India to those nations.

As for the litany of other concerns raised in the article, how can one blame the BJP or its model of growth when Congress has basically been in power for all of India's history. Hell, one of Modi's slogans has been "toilets, not temples" so obviously he recognizes the very huge issue of open defecation. It's Congress that hasn't done anything about it.

Moreover, it is the Congress that believes in a planned economy with subsidies for every little thing including diesel and kerosene (which almost bankrupt India in 1991) as well as the subsidies for fertilizer. The BJP wants to reduce/ get rid of the subsidies for petroleum products but guess which party blocks them: Congress. Getting rid of petroleum subsidies would actually be a very good thing for the Indian economy and is another needed economic reform. And only the BJP is serious about it. Also, why should teachers actually teach when they basically can't get fired and don't have to perform in order to get paid due to protection from their union?

Oh as for the informal sector which is the cause of the labor issues you see in India, it is the result of the strict and inflexible labor laws that are in place. If an employer with more than 50 employees can't fire an employee and has to follow a litany of regulations and deal with red tape and bureaucracy, it creates an incentive for businesses to remain small and creates the informal sector you see today in India. I don't know what the solution to that is, but establishing at will employment would be a good start.

And finally, India's condition cannot be blamed on just inequality of income since if you look at the GINI  index, India is less unequal than the U.S., China and Brazil. Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya are economists with good ideas on how to grow the Indian economy in an inclusive way. Amartya Sen is just better at complaining and trying to justify his Marxist ideology against the avalanche of evidence to the contrary.

[Kingpoleon]

We're a bunch of idiots.

We should just negotiate our way around into India, thereby limiting the expansion of China any further. Hopefully, India can be made more democratic, but for now, I suggest we find ways to spread this grown to make Vietnam and Cambodia and Thailand more intwined with the American economy.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

You got a citation for that?

Also the article quite clearly states increased investment has increased the rate of growth in India. Modi's government lifted the limit of FDI leading to increased capital inflows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10211435/An-Uncertain-Glory-India-and-itsContradictions-by-Jean-Dreze-and-Amartya-Sen-review.html

Note: I've read An Uncertain Glory. It's really good.

Check out the per capita GDP of India in 2014-2015. It is comparable to large parts of Sub Saharan Africa so it should not be surprising that the human development is on par with that. And this is after the GDP growth of the last 10-15 years. More growth is needed to first raise those GDP levels to those of China or Brazil before you can start comparing India to those nations.

As for the litany of other concerns raised in the article, how can one blame the BJP or its model of growth when Congress has basically been in power for all of India's history. Hell, one of Modi's slogans has been "toilets, not temples" so obviously he recognizes the very huge issue of open defecation. It's Congress that hasn't done anything about it.

Moreover, it is the Congress that believes in a planned economy with subsidies for every little thing including diesel and kerosene (which almost bankrupt India in 1991) as well as the subsidies for fertilizer. The BJP wants to reduce/ get rid of the subsidies for petroleum products but guess which party blocks them: Congress. Getting rid of petroleum subsidies would actually be a very good thing for the Indian economy and is another needed economic reform. And only the BJP is serious about it. Also, why should teachers actually teach when they basically can't get fired and don't have to perform in order to get paid due to protection from their union?

Oh as for the informal sector which is the cause of the labor issues you see in India, it is the result of the strict and inflexible labor laws that are in place. If an employer with more than 50 employees can't fire an employee and has to follow a litany of regulations and deal with red tape and bureaucracy, it creates an incentive for businesses to remain small and creates the informal sector you see today in India. I don't know what the solution to that is, but establishing at will employment would be a good start.

And finally, India's condition cannot be blamed on just inequality of income since if you look at the GINI  index, India is less unequal than the U.S., China and Brazil. Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya are economists with good ideas on how to grow the Indian economy in an inclusive way. Amartya Sen is just better at complaining and trying to justify his Marxist ideology against the avalanche of evidence to the contrary.

Amartya Sen isn't Marxist, that's a bizarre statement. He's staked out his career as public intellectual by writing books that laud markets, trade etc. He's very much a "liberal", albeit a left-liberal in the vein of Rawls. His critique is fair-minded and he's very critical of India's manufacturing malaise, which is partially rooted in a history of terrible labor laws in Indian regions that have militant labor movements. The book wasn't written as some polemical piece against the BJP, nor did I ever claim that it was, so I'm not sure why you're treating my post as if I'm some shill for the INC. However, I think that the critique of the BJP is implicit and contained within it. If you want to understand my argument: read the book and read the quote I posted from the review a little more closely. It is one thing to argue that India needs to develop but development pathways matter and India's development pathway has neglected to remedy the most appalling characteristics of extreme poverty: its effects on health. India's life expectancy is far lower than Bangladesh's life expectancy, it has failed to make investments in health infrastructure, even neglecting the importance of flush toilets much less clean drinking water. While Modi was shilling for his high-tech city, a massive subsidy for corporations, he could have just as easily focused on human development in the form of improving health metrics or educational outcomes. He has done neither: Modi's "toilets not temples" stance came in the form of banning public officials from running for office if they did not own a toilet, which is symbolic/useless and elitist.

Look man, I'm a democratic socialist but I check this at the door when I discuss development economics because I'm rather unconcerned about increasing inequality so long as it is coupled with rapid development; eliminating extreme poverty doesn't require "distributive justice", it requires the fruits of modernity, which are grown by increasing levels of capital inflows and eliminating trade barriers. However, this condition, while necessary, is not sufficient nor is it desirable for its own sake. Developing countries still need to make massive investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure that undergirds both etc. Furthermore, social safety nets play a key role in unleashing the human capability, allowing for farmers and informal sector employees alike to make rational/informed decisions about savings and investment without facing the cognitive blunting that accompanies the anxiety of economic insecurity. I'd go further than this and argue that radical measures such as land re-distribution or the creation of state-owned development banks can play a major role in increasing yields, mechanizing agriculture and freeing up labor for the manufacturing sector.

Modi's model is far too dependent on liberalization. That's all well and good but the creation of an efficient and expansive public sector is also crucial for development economics; all too often, right-wing economists are prone to forgetting that there's a direct correlation between development and levels of taxation or development and public sector spending. This correlation exists because modern economies cannot exist without the creation of transformative and enduring institutions; public education, public higher education, hospitals etc.

Note: it goes without saying that I hate Modi, who I think is a despicable fascist thug, but I hope India succeeds, I really do.

[Green Line]

India needs to be our counterweight to China.  We should invest heavily in their economy and military, because Japan is a fading ally and India is the future.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's hard to doubt that a lot of subsidies are economically distortionary and hardly helping, especially gasoline subsidies in these times. I don't doubt that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that Modi is some kind of one-man band of change. It's pretty clear that his leadership of Gujarat was largely coasting off the growth that would have come anyway from rebuilding after the earthquake. As PM, his incredibly divisive personality is suffocating his plans - and before you say "of well that's Congress's fault" - well, part of leadership is making a strong case for negotiation. He seems to think that his landslide election - more of a repudiation of UPA II's scandals and the disaster that is Rahul Gandhi than a real endorsement of Modi IMO, is evidence enough that he can do whatever he wants. The man needs to focus on infrastructure - he made very good plans for electrification etc. - but can he reach them?

The other weird trend for BJP fans is to bemoan money "wasted" on, err, keeping some of the world's most undernourished people enough food to live.  If you want to be utilitarian about it, that food bill - especially for children - literally pays for itself over time.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's hard to doubt that a lot of subsidies are economically distortionary and hardly helping, especially gasoline subsidies in these times. I don't doubt that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that Modi is some kind of one-man band of change. It's pretty clear that his leadership of Gujarat was largely coasting off the growth that would have come anyway from rebuilding after the earthquake. As PM, his incredibly divisive personality is suffocating his plans - and before you say "of well that's Congress's fault" - well, part of leadership is making a strong case for negotiation. He seems to think that his landslide election - more of a repudiation of UPA II's scandals and the disaster that is Rahul Gandhi than a real endorsement of Modi IMO, is evidence enough that he can do whatever he wants. The man needs to focus on infrastructure - he made very good plans for electrification etc. - but can he reach them?

The other weird trend for BJP fans is to bemoan money "wasted" on, err, keeping some of the world's most undernourished people enough food to live.  If you want to be utilitarian about it, that food bill - especially for children - literally pays for itself over time.

 Singh= Jimmy Carter, Modi = Reagan

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Insightful.

[Intell]

It's hard to doubt that a lot of subsidies are economically distortionary and hardly helping, especially gasoline subsidies in these times. I don't doubt that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that Modi is some kind of one-man band of change. It's pretty clear that his leadership of Gujarat was largely coasting off the growth that would have come anyway from rebuilding after the earthquake. As PM, his incredibly divisive personality is suffocating his plans - and before you say "of well that's Congress's fault" - well, part of leadership is making a strong case for negotiation. He seems to think that his landslide election - more of a repudiation of UPA II's scandals and the disaster that is Rahul Gandhi than a real endorsement of Modi IMO, is evidence enough that he can do whatever he wants. The man needs to focus on infrastructure - he made very good plans for electrification etc. - but can he reach them?

The other weird trend for BJP fans is to bemoan money "wasted" on, err, keeping some of the world's most undernourished people enough food to live.  If you want to be utilitarian about it, that food bill - especially for children - literally pays for itself over time.

 Singh= Jimmy Carter, Modi = Reagan

Singh was the reason, the economy started booming, and greatly improved lives for lower class people, even if he enacted polices that I don't particularly like. Modi has done nothing to help anyone, except large corporations to hoop di do grow. Economy and standard of living, was better under Carter than under Reagan for poor, lower class people. Regan ruined lives, for lower class and lower-middle class people, wasted trillions on defense, as well as initiated Reaganomics, which caused a lot of recessions in his term, as well as caused the 08' Great Recessions

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's hard to doubt that a lot of subsidies are economically distortionary and hardly helping, especially gasoline subsidies in these times. I don't doubt that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that Modi is some kind of one-man band of change. It's pretty clear that his leadership of Gujarat was largely coasting off the growth that would have come anyway from rebuilding after the earthquake. As PM, his incredibly divisive personality is suffocating his plans - and before you say "of well that's Congress's fault" - well, part of leadership is making a strong case for negotiation. He seems to think that his landslide election - more of a repudiation of UPA II's scandals and the disaster that is Rahul Gandhi than a real endorsement of Modi IMO, is evidence enough that he can do whatever he wants. The man needs to focus on infrastructure - he made very good plans for electrification etc. - but can he reach them?

The other weird trend for BJP fans is to bemoan money "wasted" on, err, keeping some of the world's most undernourished people enough food to live.  If you want to be utilitarian about it, that food bill - especially for children - literally pays for itself over time.

 Singh= Jimmy Carter, Modi = Reagan

Singh was the reason, the economy started booming, and greatly improved lives for lower class people, even if he enacted polices that I don't particularly like. Modi has done nothing to help anyone, except large corporations to hoop di do grow. Economy and standard of living, was better under Carter than under Reagan for poor, lower class people. Regan ruined lives, for lower class and lower-middle class people, wasted trillions on defense, as well as initiated Reaganomics, which caused a lot of recessions in his term, as well as caused the 08' Great Recessions

So Carter's 13% inflation , 10% unemployment, median wages in terms of inflation being stagnant , poverty rising, 15% Interest is better then low unemployment, low inflation, median wages going up in terms of inflation, and low intrest rates lol. Also If Reagan is to blame for the early 80s reccession , Obama is to blame for the economy from 2009-2011. Reagan was better for the middle class of the country then Carter was and my facts I just pointed out to you prove it. And Lastly Reagan didnt cause the 08 reccession the repeal of Glass Stegall and Alan Greenspan doing nothing about the housing bubble did.

[Sbane]

It's hard to doubt that a lot of subsidies are economically distortionary and hardly helping, especially gasoline subsidies in these times. I don't doubt that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that Modi is some kind of one-man band of change. It's pretty clear that his leadership of Gujarat was largely coasting off the growth that would have come anyway from rebuilding after the earthquake. As PM, his incredibly divisive personality is suffocating his plans - and before you say "of well that's Congress's fault" - well, part of leadership is making a strong case for negotiation. He seems to think that his landslide election - more of a repudiation of UPA II's scandals and the disaster that is Rahul Gandhi than a real endorsement of Modi IMO, is evidence enough that he can do whatever he wants. The man needs to focus on infrastructure - he made very good plans for electrification etc. - but can he reach them?

The other weird trend for BJP fans is to bemoan money "wasted" on, err, keeping some of the world's most undernourished people enough food to live.  If you want to be utilitarian about it, that food bill - especially for children - literally pays for itself over time.

 Singh= Jimmy Carter, Modi = Reagan

I wouldn't be so simplistic. Singh actually saved the Indian economy in 1991 and was the person who started liberalizing the Indian economy when he was Finance Minister. The issue was that while Singh was the figurehead, Sonia Gandhi was the actual prime minister of India from 2004-2014. She, unlike Singh, was not an economist and didn't understand how to sustain the economic growth unleashed by Singh's reforms in the 1990's and subsequent reforms by the BJP government in power from 1998-2004.

[Sbane]

We're a bunch of idiots.

We should just negotiate our way around into India, thereby limiting the expansion of China any further. Hopefully, India can be made more democratic, but for now, I suggest we find ways to spread this grown to make Vietnam and Cambodia and Thailand more intwined with the American economy.

How is India not democratic?

[Sbane]

This would've happend anyways, and India's growing economy really isin't seeing benefits for the most of the population. F*k Modi 2015.

You got a citation for that?

Also the article quite clearly states increased investment has increased the rate of growth in India. Modi's government lifted the limit of FDI leading to increased capital inflows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10211435/An-Uncertain-Glory-India-and-itsContradictions-by-Jean-Dreze-and-Amartya-Sen-review.html

Note: I've read An Uncertain Glory. It's really good.

Check out the per capita GDP of India in 2014-2015. It is comparable to large parts of Sub Saharan Africa so it should not be surprising that the human development is on par with that. And this is after the GDP growth of the last 10-15 years. More growth is needed to first raise those GDP levels to those of China or Brazil before you can start comparing India to those nations.

As for the litany of other concerns raised in the article, how can one blame the BJP or its model of growth when Congress has basically been in power for all of India's history. Hell, one of Modi's slogans has been "toilets, not temples" so obviously he recognizes the very huge issue of open defecation. It's Congress that hasn't done anything about it.

Moreover, it is the Congress that believes in a planned economy with subsidies for every little thing including diesel and kerosene (which almost bankrupt India in 1991) as well as the subsidies for fertilizer. The BJP wants to reduce/ get rid of the subsidies for petroleum products but guess which party blocks them: Congress. Getting rid of petroleum subsidies would actually be a very good thing for the Indian economy and is another needed economic reform. And only the BJP is serious about it. Also, why should teachers actually teach when they basically can't get fired and don't have to perform in order to get paid due to protection from their union?

Oh as for the informal sector which is the cause of the labor issues you see in India, it is the result of the strict and inflexible labor laws that are in place. If an employer with more than 50 employees can't fire an employee and has to follow a litany of regulations and deal with red tape and bureaucracy, it creates an incentive for businesses to remain small and creates the informal sector you see today in India. I don't know what the solution to that is, but establishing at will employment would be a good start.

And finally, India's condition cannot be blamed on just inequality of income since if you look at the GINI  index, India is less unequal than the U.S., China and Brazil. Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya are economists with good ideas on how to grow the Indian economy in an inclusive way. Amartya Sen is just better at complaining and trying to justify his Marxist ideology against the avalanche of evidence to the contrary.

Amartya Sen isn't Marxist, that's a bizarre statement. He's staked out his career as public intellectual by writing books that laud markets, trade etc. He's very much a "liberal", albeit a left-liberal in the vein of Rawls. His critique is fair-minded and he's very critical of India's manufacturing malaise, which is partially rooted in a history of terrible labor laws in Indian regions that have militant labor movements. The book wasn't written as some polemical piece against the BJP, nor did I ever claim that it was, so I'm not sure why you're treating my post as if I'm some shill for the INC. However, I think that the critique of the BJP is implicit and contained within it. If you want to understand my argument: read the book and read the quote I posted from the review a little more closely. It is one thing to argue that India needs to develop but development pathways matter and India's development pathway has neglected to remedy the most appalling characteristics of extreme poverty: its effects on health. India's life expectancy is far lower than Bangladesh's life expectancy, it has failed to make investments in health infrastructure, even neglecting the importance of flush toilets much less clean drinking water. While Modi was shilling for his high-tech city, a massive subsidy for corporations, he could have just as easily focused on human development in the form of improving health metrics or educational outcomes. He has done neither: Modi's "toilets not temples" stance came in the form of banning public officials from running for office if they did not own a toilet, which is symbolic/useless and elitist.

Look man, I'm a democratic socialist but I check this at the door when I discuss development economics because I'm rather unconcerned about increasing inequality so long as it is coupled with rapid development; eliminating extreme poverty doesn't require "distributive justice", it requires the fruits of modernity, which are grown by increasing levels of capital inflows and eliminating trade barriers. However, this condition, while necessary, is not sufficient nor is it desirable for its own sake. Developing countries still need to make massive investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure that undergirds both etc. Furthermore, social safety nets play a key role in unleashing the human capability, allowing for farmers and informal sector employees alike to make rational/informed decisions about savings and investment without facing the cognitive blunting that accompanies the anxiety of economic insecurity. I'd go further than this and argue that radical measures such as land re-distribution or the creation of state-owned development banks can play a major role in increasing yields, mechanizing agriculture and freeing up labor for the manufacturing sector.

Modi's model is far too dependent on liberalization. That's all well and good but the creation of an efficient and expansive public sector is also crucial for development economics; all too often, right-wing economists are prone to forgetting that there's a direct correlation between development and levels of taxation or development and public sector spending. This correlation exists because modern economies cannot exist without the creation of transformative and enduring institutions; public education, public higher education, hospitals etc.

Note: it goes without saying that I hate Modi, who I think is a despicable fascist thug, but I hope India succeeds, I really do.

I agree that private sector growth on its own is not going to solve all of India's problem. The private sector isn't going to create the infrastructure needed for growth, and that ranges from roads to electricity, and of course education and health/cleanliness. I think it is a very fair criticism of India that India has lagged in these sectors even as the overall economy has grown. This is a direct result of the massive corruption and waste found within the Indian government. The saying that India grows "not because of but despite its government" is absolutely true. The election of Modi and the BJP was in one part based on the hope that they can make the government work more efficiently, which is definitely needed to cultivate future growth. Some of this can be made better by privatization (does the government really need to run an airline or the railway system?) but you can't privatize everything. The private sector isn't going to educate the youth of India. Change needs to occur within the ranks of government and it remains to be seen whether Modi and the BJP can do it.

[Intell]

It's hard to doubt that a lot of subsidies are economically distortionary and hardly helping, especially gasoline subsidies in these times. I don't doubt that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that Modi is some kind of one-man band of change. It's pretty clear that his leadership of Gujarat was largely coasting off the growth that would have come anyway from rebuilding after the earthquake. As PM, his incredibly divisive personality is suffocating his plans - and before you say "of well that's Congress's fault" - well, part of leadership is making a strong case for negotiation. He seems to think that his landslide election - more of a repudiation of UPA II's scandals and the disaster that is Rahul Gandhi than a real endorsement of Modi IMO, is evidence enough that he can do whatever he wants. The man needs to focus on infrastructure - he made very good plans for electrification etc. - but can he reach them?

The other weird trend for BJP fans is to bemoan money "wasted" on, err, keeping some of the world's most undernourished people enough food to live.  If you want to be utilitarian about it, that food bill - especially for children - literally pays for itself over time.

 Singh= Jimmy Carter, Modi = Reagan

Singh was the reason, the economy started booming, and greatly improved lives for lower class people, even if he enacted polices that I don't particularly like. Modi has done nothing to help anyone, except large corporations to hoop di do grow. Economy and standard of living, was better under Carter than under Reagan for poor, lower class people. Regan ruined lives, for lower class and lower-middle class people, wasted trillions on defense, as well as initiated Reaganomics, which caused a lot of recessions in his term, as well as caused the 08' Great Recessions

So Carter's 13% inflation , 10% unemployment, median wages in terms of inflation being stagnant , poverty rising, 15% Interest is better then low unemployment, low inflation, median wages going up in terms of inflation, and low intrest rates lol. Also If Reagan is to blame for the early 80s reccession , Obama is to blame for the economy from 2009-2011. Reagan was better for the middle class of the country then Carter was and my facts I just pointed out to you prove it. And Lastly Reagan didnt cause the 08 reccession the repeal of Glass Stegall and Alan Greenspan doing nothing about the housing bubble did.

Carter didn't cause inflation, natural cycle. Regan let's not forget, increased unemployment after he entered office. Under Carter, unemployment and the economy remained stable. Under Regan fluctuations, Reaganomics caused a lot of minor recessions. I don't really care about the middle class, so f*k them, lower and working class improvement is much more important. I don't get why low interest rates, are necessarily a good thing, or either why interest rate matters so much. Regan, along with Carter, Clinton and Bush destabilized the economy, with Reaganomics and deregulation which caused major wealth inequity and the great recessions. Obama din't cause this economy though, it much rather Regan, Clinton and Bush, Obama with stimulus has caused the economy, not to go into Shi*t hole, like it has in Europe.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's hard to doubt that a lot of subsidies are economically distortionary and hardly helping, especially gasoline subsidies in these times. I don't doubt that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that Modi is some kind of one-man band of change. It's pretty clear that his leadership of Gujarat was largely coasting off the growth that would have come anyway from rebuilding after the earthquake. As PM, his incredibly divisive personality is suffocating his plans - and before you say "of well that's Congress's fault" - well, part of leadership is making a strong case for negotiation. He seems to think that his landslide election - more of a repudiation of UPA II's scandals and the disaster that is Rahul Gandhi than a real endorsement of Modi IMO, is evidence enough that he can do whatever he wants. The man needs to focus on infrastructure - he made very good plans for electrification etc. - but can he reach them?

The other weird trend for BJP fans is to bemoan money "wasted" on, err, keeping some of the world's most undernourished people enough food to live.  If you want to be utilitarian about it, that food bill - especially for children - literally pays for itself over time.

 Singh= Jimmy Carter, Modi = Reagan

Singh was the reason, the economy started booming, and greatly improved lives for lower class people, even if he enacted polices that I don't particularly like. Modi has done nothing to help anyone, except large corporations to hoop di do grow. Economy and standard of living, was better under Carter than under Reagan for poor, lower class people. Regan ruined lives, for lower class and lower-middle class people, wasted trillions on defense, as well as initiated Reaganomics, which caused a lot of recessions in his term, as well as caused the 08' Great Recessions

So Carter's 13% inflation , 10% unemployment, median wages in terms of inflation being stagnant , poverty rising, 15% Interest is better then low unemployment, low inflation, median wages going up in terms of inflation, and low intrest rates lol. Also If Reagan is to blame for the early 80s reccession , Obama is to blame for the economy from 2009-2011. Reagan was better for the middle class of the country then Carter was and my facts I just pointed out to you prove it. And Lastly Reagan didnt cause the 08 reccession the repeal of Glass Stegall and Alan Greenspan doing nothing about the housing bubble did.

Carter didn't cause inflation, natural cycle. Regan let's not forget, increased unemployment after he entered office. Under Carter, unemployment and the economy remained stable. Under Regan fluctuations, Reaganomics caused a lot of minor recessions. I don't really care about the middle class, so f*k them, lower and working class improvement is much more important. I don't get why low interest rates, are necessarily a good thing, or either why interest rate matters so much. Regan, along with Carter, Clinton and Bush destabilized the economy, with Reaganomics and deregulation which caused major wealth inequity and the great recessions. Obama din't cause this economy though, it much rather Regan, Clinton and Bush, Obama with stimulus has caused the economy, not to go into Shi*t hole, like it has in Europe.

The Middle Class is the most important part of an economy not the lower or higher class. Lol at Carter's economy being more stable then Reagan's, at the end of Carter's term there was a major recession which caused unemployment to go up dramatically during Reagan's first 2 years, and then there was no reccession in the US till a minor one in 1990 so the economy was clearly more stable under Reagan .Lastly I did not blame Obama for the recession , I said Alan Greenspan and the repeal of Glass Stegall caused the 2008 Recession.