Food prices mock India's scorching growth

[ssheppard]

Yeah, but in villages prices of grocery food items are as same as in cities.

For example, the price of mustard oil or rice oil is almost same everywhere.

I am not talking about sunflower oil. Not everyone can afford it on a regular basis.

Sir, You will find a Government subsidized shop in every village ...or if they are small villages there is one shop for 2 to 2 villages.

 

[Skeptic]

Ok Lets see how this works in Indian rupees according to you:

Not according to me but as per actuals.

For a Family of 4 in India

so for a Family of 4:

Rs 40 X 4 = Rs 160 to spend on living....every day.

For a month : 30 days

Rs 160 X 30= Rs. 4800 (So this would be the amount an an avarage poor family from India will have to spend in entire month.)



Now if its a poor family: it has a Ration Card that allows the family to buy food items from a Government Subsidized shop :

Sugar @ 15 Rupees a Kg......and an average family for 4 Gets 5 KG suger for a month.....: 75 Rupees

Rice @5 Rupees a KG....and an average family of 4 Gets 15 to 20 KG Rice every month as per Govt Policy....: 100 Rupees

other Staples like Pulses can be bought at : 20 Rupees cents a KG from the same shop:.......and poor family is alotted 5KG of Pulses a month: 100 Rupees

Soap Detergents and other hygiene products would cost you around 200 Rupees a month....

Wheat flour used for cooking Roti(Staple Indian Diet) can be bought @ 10 Rupees ....so for 20 KG you end up paying : 200 Rupees


Fruits and vegetable would eat up around: 500 Rupees.



Electricity Bills in Rural area are not more than 400 Rupees....and Ditoo for Communication bills.....


Fuel to cook food for a month would cost about 350 Rupees



School fees for your Kids Government subsidized school....200 Rupees each.... that means 400 Rupees


Your Family health expenses....500 Rupees.

One more huge figure house rent in rural area it would be 700 Rupees ....a month....

So now please add ...all this.....

That is oversimplification and hogwash. Reason: almost 30% live BELOW $1 per day. To give you some perspective:

For several years the percentage of Indians living below the poverty line (BPL) was pegged at 28.5 per cent. This estimate was made by the Planning Commission on the basis of the findings of the Sample Survey Organisation in 2004-05, which in turn were based on a 1972 benchmark which defined the poverty line by the money required to buy 2,100 calories worth of food in urban areas, and 2,400 calories in rural areas. Food was the only criterion to determine poverty. No mention was made of other essentials, such as shelter, clothing or even the most basic of health care, leave alone ‘luxuries’ like primary education.

In 2007, another commission, this one headed by Arjun Sengupta to look into the unorganised sector, came up with the startling figure that 77 per cent of Indians were poor. With economic reforms underway, the economy growing at a respectable pace and India readying itself to assume the mantle of a regional, if not international, economic superpower, this was like waving a red rag at a bull. If 77 per cent of all Indians were poor, what price the much vaunted, emerging Indian middle class – vanguard of our democracy – which was said to range anywhere between 150 million and 350 million?

Our poverty experts got into a huddle and in June 2009 yet another committee, headed by N C Saxena, agreed to round off poor Indians at exactly 50 per cent of the population. What could be fairer than that? Fifty-fifty. Half the country’s poor, half not poor; half haves, half have-nots.

But this equal distribution of the spoils, so to speak, has once more been challenged by – guess what? – yet another committee, headed by S D Tendulkar, former chairman of the PM’s Economic Advisory Committee, which on the basis of interlocking indicators including health care, education, sanitation and nutrition has calculated India’s poor as comprising 38 per cent of the population.

So is this figure final, and will the powers that be finally stop juggling statistics and get on with the job of actually doing something to at least alleviate poverty, forget eradicating it? No way. Already the new figure of 38 per cent has been questioned by Mihir Shah, member-in-charge of rural development in the Planning Commission. Refusing to accept the 38 per cent figure, the member-in-charge has however admitted that the old figure of 28.5 per cent probably needed upward adjustment.

Meanwhile, the taxi meter for the government’s poverty alleviation schemes has ticked up to a humongous Rs 1,51,460 crore in the past four years under just three of the sarkar’s anti-poverty schemes. An anonymous senior official has been quoted as saying that “The expenditure will further increase with the government envisaging providing basic entitlement of food to all under the National Food Security Act.”

The more poor we have, the more money the government spends on them. And the more money the government spends on them, the more poor we have. Rajiv Gandhi once estimated that of every rupee the sarkar spent on poor relief, only 16 paise reached the targeted individual. Today – when the government of India has asked Swiss banks to divulge details of Indian accounts – that figure has come down to between 5 and 6 paise to the rupee. So where does all the anti-poverty money go? Take a guess.

Yes, India is indeed a rich country with a lot of poor people in it. And it’s these poor people who make rich India rich, give it its wealth of poverty. India cannot afford to give up its lucrative poverty; it must perpetuate it.

The poor? Well, if they can’t afford to eat roti, let them eat a substitute that the sarkar provides in ample measure for them. Let them eat statistics.

Now if we always want to blame Government for everything..then thats a different story....

I dont want to blame the government, but would you not agree that distribution system does need revamping. That every year there are people dying of starvation and kids are malnutritioned.

The fact is we are not getting sufficient results for the investment made by the government. As for the food prices, it is a double edged sword. 75% of the poor reside in rural areas and depend upon agriculture. Increased food prices will indirecttly translate into more income for them. but again some are working peasants who are paid for labour and don't own land. they need to buy food. So while increased food prices would translate in increased income, it will also translate into higher expenses on processed food.

We recently saw a major rally in Delhi by farmers asking for increase in support price for sugarcane. Now would that not mena increase in price of Sugar, it will.

This is economics my dear and some extremely simplistic calculations would not give you the correct picture.

What were you mentioning - a poor in India earns Rs. 4800 per month - and saves 1000 buck from It.... you surely are not a fmily man and have no clues how households are run.

Poverty is a major problem in India, and we can not shy away from that.

 

[ssheppard]

Not according to me but as per actuals.


That is oversimplification and hogwash. Reason: almost 30% live BELOW $1 per day. To give you some perspective:



I dont want to blame the government, but would you not agree that distribution system does need revamping. That every year there are people dying of starvation and kids are malnutritioned.

The fact is we are not getting sufficient results for the investment made by the government. As for the food prices, it is a double edged sword. 75% of the poor reside in rural areas and depend upon agriculture. Increased food prices will indirecttly translate into more income for them. but again some are working peasants who are paid for labour and don't own land. they need to buy food. So while increased food prices would translate in increased income, it will also translate into higher expenses on processed food.

We recently saw a major rally in Delhi by farmers asking for increase in support price for sugarcane. Now would that not mena increase in price of Sugar, it will.

This is economics my dear and some extremely simplistic calculations would not give you the correct picture.

What were you mentioning - a poor in India earns Rs. 4800 per month - and saves 1000 buck from It.... you surely are not a fmily man and have no clues how households are run.

Poverty is a major problem in India, and we can not shy away from that.

You said on an average a poor India earns 30 to 40 Rupees a day....which is less than 1$.....i guess....if I consider today's exchange rate.....

I accept that.....even a beggar standing on the red light would earn about 50 Rupees per day. and his family also begs with him...and they make even more money...and rickshaw wala would earn at least 150 a day ...less his rickshaw rent 50 Rupees...he gets 100 Rupees.... his wife goes out and works in houses and earns about 2000 to 2500 Rupees a month. I hope you pay your Kaam wali bai atleast 500 Rupees a month....and she would generally work in 5 to 6 houses.

the problem is that after working ...the begger and rikshaw wal Drink Daru...and beat their wives....and you want entire country to be held responsible for their acts.

There is a need to simplify things because people like you and me only look at big numbers and forget to drill deep down.......the whole so called civil society is busy beating the hell out of India just to satisfy their egos...and feel that they have spoken about India's evils ...so they have done their job.......

 

[pak-yes]

self delete

 

[gpit]

.... Obviously India can't buy "rains" from the heavens. ....

...

The only thing that hampers India is bad governance and that has nothing to do with how much we buy for the military, ...

Are you now telling us that a good governance can buy "rains" from the heaven?



Watch out your logic!

 

[KSRaj]

Chinese aggression, American aggression, please feel free to imagine whatever aggression you would like to have beforehand.

But its not Chinese, its Indians who are suffering from price hike of daily food items.

This is how the story ends.

The juveniles!

Food inflation is the current concern in every part of the world currently.

Meaning ... every country is currently facing problems due to rocketing prices of food items ... and India is no exception to this Global issue!

 

[skeptic9]

@Stax here is some interesting Caluculation for you:

For a Family of 4 in India

According to World bank....Every Indian lives on 2 Dollar a day....

so for a Family of 4:...

That was very theoretical, my friend. Most of the rice and sugar meant for subsidized distribution are diverted and sold in black market
at higher prices making them unaffordable to poorest. That's the bitter truth. Majority of these goodies never reach the poor.

 

[gpit]

Just one curiosity: how popular is the idea of charity/philanthropy in India? I know “India” is probably a bit too vast and too general, as tradition varies from place to place.

What if the government fails to rescue those in starvation? Will local rich be likely to help out by giving (not lending) foods to those in need?

 

[skeptic9]

Just one curiosity: how popular is the idea of charity/philanthropy in India? I know “India” is probably a bit too vast and too general, as tradition varies from place to place.

What if the government fails to rescue those in starvation? Will local rich be likely to help out by giving (not lending) foods to those in need?

Begging is quite "popular" among some poor. Not exaggerating but some even earn more than a middle-class family only by begging in streets, but they are professional beggers. The "real" needy is still very poor and starved.

 

[KSRaj]

Any comment on why Basmati rice is way more expensive? Even in Canada it is the case. I have largely switched to Basmati / brown rice for its chewiness and nutty flavour, and for the perceived benefit of lower glycemic index. For the life of me I can't figure out why brown (coarse) rice should be more expensive around here ...

Basmati rice: longer grained variety; has a great fragrance; not so sticky making it ideal for many rice preparations.
The reason why they are expensive is coz rice of this variety are usually grown/limited to the Punjab region (of India and Pakistan) due to the geography of these areas that support basmati cultivation.

By "brown", I assume you are referring to the unpolished variety. Even though I am not aware of any health benefits of Basmati rice, I think its accepted by everyone that the unpolished varieties are always the healthier option so the same would be true in the Basmati variety as well. And for people like me who are used to brown rice(not the brown basmati variety), there is no other alternative that is as satisfying!

But I assumed it to be cheaper as it has lesser processing to do. So yes ... I too am confused why it should be priced higher. Probably just a demand-supply issue over there!

 

[s6demon]

oh by the way, has '71 ever kept you from opening your mouth? That was actually nine years after '62, and Pakistan ended up losing half its territory, just in case you forgot.

LMAO, always back to the 71 war, huh? I wish you had more to show for all of you blah blah blah then you guys wouldnt sound like a broken record


Oh and Please do show us how Bangladesh was HALF of West Pakistan. I am curious to see how you spin that math around.

Tragic as it was, Bangladesh was 1/7th of Pakistan. Just as Indian population is 7 times larger than Pakistan. and despite of having an advantage of 1 to 7 you still cant rid of Pakistan.

just to put it in perspective, Indian population is 1/6th of the world. So if India went to war with rest of the world COMBIED. the disparity would still be smaller than what Pakistan faced every time it fought with India. and yet you people think you have something to be proud of? if anything, you should be drowning yourself in shame.


THIS POST WAS MASSIVELY OFF THE TOPIC ........ SORRY

 

[Spitfighter]

LMAO, always back to the 71 war, huh? I wish you had more to show for all of you blah blah blah then you guys wouldnt sound like a broken record

The war of '71 changed the strategic equation decisively in India's favor.

Without going into too much depth, Pakistan lost half its population and economy which obviously had a significant impact on the psyche and capabilities of the nation. India gained the advantage of having to focus solely on one front (up until recently), which further tipped the balance in our favor. All in all, India established itself as the dominant power in South Asia with the liberation of Bangladesh.

Had Pakistan still been intact, India's strategic capabilities would have been severely limited. Today India can project power over much of the Indian ocean, Arabian sea and the Bay of Bengal. We could have been faced with two Gwadars instead of one, nukes in two directions, full fledged insurgencies in Kashmir and the NE, etc etc.

The events of '71 have allowed India to look beyond South Asia. Quite a bit to show for ourselves from one war I think.

If you were even the least bit concerned about staying on topic you wouldn't post garbage like this:

its cute hearing Indians trying to hyperbole as if they would ever be able to be a match for the Chinese. I hope you guys havent forgotton the type of defeat you had to suffer last time trying to implement your "forward policy."

 

[PakSher]

I have an Indian colleague that tells me that it is Rs.1,500.00 (One thousand seven hundred to fill up petrol in a Toyota Corolla. Is this true.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

The war of '71 changed the strategic equation decisively in India's favor.

Without going into too much depth, Pakistan lost half its population and economy which obviously had a significant impact on the psyche and capabilities of the nation. India gained the advantage of having to focus solely on one front (up until recently), which further tipped the balance in our favor. All in all, India established itself as the dominant power in South Asia with the liberation of Bangladesh.

Had Pakistan still been intact, India's strategic capabilities would have been severely limited. Today India can project power over much of the Indian ocean, Arabian sea and the Bay of Bengal. We could have been faced with two Gwadars instead of one, nukes in two directions, full fledged insurgencies in Kashmir and the NE, etc etc.

The events of '71 have allowed India to look beyond South Asia. Quite a bit to show for ourselves from one war I think.

So India was behind dividing two brothers for its own good

 

[s6demon]

The war of '71 changed the strategic equation decisively in India's favor.

Without going into too much depth, Pakistan lost half its population and economy which obviously had a significant impact on the psyche and capabilities of the nation. India gained the advantage of having to focus solely on one front (up until recently), which further tipped the balance in our favor. All in all, India established itself as the dominant power in South Asia with the liberation of Bangladesh.

Had Pakistan still been intact, India's strategic capabilities would have been severely limited. Today India can project power over much of the Indian ocean, Arabian sea and the Bay of Bengal. We could have been faced with two Gwadars instead of one, nukes in two directions, full fledged insurgencies in Kashmir and the NE, etc etc.

The events of '71 have allowed India to look beyond South Asia. Quite a bit to show for ourselves from one war I think.

If you were even the least bit concerned about staying on topic you wouldn't post garbage like this:

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

do i seriously have to reply to this comedy?

have you forgotton when Pakistan became a nuclear power? was it before or after 71?