What is the big difference between 1947 and 2017 in India?
ItBetween 1947 and 2017, India has transformed beyond recognition. We were the world’s most miserable country at the time of independence. Consider these facts:Average life span was less than 30 years, that has risen to 69. Other than Bihar and UP, where infant and child mortality rates are higher than the national average, the figure is closer to 73.Only 10% of the people could read in 1947. Of the 45+ age group, that is close to 92%. We have set up institutes of higher education like the IITs, NITs, IIITs, IIMs, AIIMS and other Medical Schools, hundreds of research labs ranging from potatoes to outer space research.We were dependent on food aid for 350 million people. Today, we feed 1,300 million and then export basmati. We have become the world’s largest milk producer, and the second largest exporter of meat.Transport infrastructure - railways, roadways, and air transport is unrecognizable from those days. Electricity availability was limited to select areas of large cities, today it is almost universal.The only industries is India were left-behind jute and cotton mills, and the two steel plants (Tata, Indian Iron) producing less than 300,000 tonnes. We have become the world’s second largest producer of steel and cement.Automobiles, appliances manufacturing has raced ahead. In 1947, a ceiling fan at home was a mark of middle class; only the very wealthy had refrigerators and a telephone connection. Air conditioners were unknown.Owning a home put you in the feudal rich category in 1947. Joint families lived in one or two rooms. Today, a home is affordable for over 80% of the population.But the biggest change was brought about in agricultural land holdings. For centuries we had feudal zamindar land holdings where tillers slaved as bonded labor for generations. In one swoop, zamindari was abolished and the lands handed over to the landless cultivators. In one swoop, 80% of the people got a huge stake in the success of the republic.India was given 10–15 years of life in 1947, before breaking apart into a hundred small nations in an orgy of violence, driven by centrifugal forces of religion, caste, language and sub-races. It was the vision and foresight of our founders that created a secular, inclusive and pluralistic society that has stayed bonded. Actions like keeping religion away from politics, creating linguistic states, and affirmative action for dalits and tribals were vehemently opposed by RSS, who also opposed abolition of zamindari.
Why is Maharashtra the richest state in India??
It has highest GDP but its not the richest state. However Maharashtra has done stpendous job on development and it has made a lot of other state people develop complex about it. The reason Maharashtra is developed because all its regions are at par with Indian Average or exceed it. Maharashtra has 5 regions - Vidarbha, Marathwada, NorthMaharashtra(Nashik Region), Desh & KonkanIn 1951 Maharashtra and Tamilnadu had about same population. Both had one Port City (Bombay vs Madras). Look at the performance nowMaharashtra state is vast and has 2 of the worst regions in India for Agriculture- Marathwada & Vidarbha. They are rain shadow regions.Maharashtra decided to concentrate on education. It has 2nd highest literacy among the big states in India 82.9% . It was lower than Tamilnadu about 50 years ago, but continuous focus towards primary education and reformed Marathi society has helped to achieve it even after huge migrant flow and higher fertility rate. Maharashtra added 8 crore people to population and Tamilnadu only 4 crores. Still it surpassed TamilNaduAn Average Marathi person is more educated than national average but not as enterprising . Its the same with Kannadiaga and Bengali community. So Maharashtra decided to welcome Industrialist who wanted to set up base over there. Both Indian and Foreign companies have big presence in several Maharashtra towns. This has been a well thought decision
Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% top tax rate (proposal) a moderate, evidence-based policy?
No it is not based on evidence. It’s based on hope and what people “wish” was true. It ignores the evidence from all around the World showing the opposite of what they wish was true.I’m a Brit and love the USA (it’s where I chose to complete my post grad), but it seriously depresses me when I see Americans wanting to follow the failed economic policies of the EU nations. The USA has out grown the EU consistently and yet it seems many in the USA want to see their country become like the EU where most have lower living standards and many governments are at risk of needing IMF bailouts.The USA has maintained a much more constant share of World GDP than the EU. Below shows a pic where USA stay a more constant share, but remember the EU has taken on more nations over this time i.e. it’s exapanded to more national members and still declined faster than the USA.This one is older but shows if you just take the same 15 EU nations.And this is the ongoing projection:What did all this mean for real people?Well most pensions are invested in the stock market. The retirements are based on it. Look how this reflected in the local stock markets. The USA stock market way exceeded the annual returns of the Euro and London based markets.What about the 70% rate specifically?When looking for your evidence, you don’t have to look to 1970s USA to find out what a 70% tax rate would do. Look to the EU. France is the most recent to try the 70%+ rate.Hollande's 75% 'Supertax' Failure A Blow To Piketty's EconomicsBasically, everyone with money left France and it raised no money. Hollande the President was voted out in one term and had the lowest approval ratings of any leader in the West due to mass unemployment and low growth.France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returnsDo you want the USA to have jobs growth like this?How about the French level of unemployment?So there is clear evidence to show that a 70% rate won’t work. How about a slightly lower rate?The UK implemented a 50% rate a while back. It raised less than the 40% rate from the same group. Then when they cut the 50% rate taxes from this group rose by £8bn.Subscribe to read | Financial TimesGeorge Osborne says top earners paying £8bn more tax after 50p rate cutSo in summary, there is no proof that a 70% tax rate would do anything positive for the USA, but there is s lot of evidence that it could do the opposite.