What's new

PM Modi announces economic relief package worth ₹20 lakh cr(270 Billion )$

.
Why don't You just Worry about Your Own Country.
Govt of India is giving relief package for the people of India,idk why you are much curious then indian themselves.:-)

Both countries have the common problem of hunger,poverty,development and many others.
But if trolling is your only goal Then Its Fine.
After Soviets....if it is not we than who cares about you? China?.... We can't let you to live as an alone orph after 1991....Our economy goals are set....HINT after Gwadar mega Oil City will be made, there will be no one comparable to it....
It is a gift for you that we care....if an economic set back similar to it happens again just for a year more time ....No army can hold 1.3 billion+ hungry people.... Which eventually results that India will be broken down into as many parts as many languages people people speak in it.:D
 
.
I did read. Oxfam report isnt a trustworthy report
in one word. It cites the example of Tamil Nadu PDS. You might not know but TN was the first state in the country to bring in Universal PDS. Do you know what it means? To everyone. Rich and poor alike. My family still buys sugar from PDS center. There has not been a single hunger death in TN like for a long time.
India's Supreme Court has repeatedly asked centre govt and other states why TN model cannot be implemented as we have a lots of food grains which gets wasted. It's only in last few years other states are implementing the same. Chattisgarh which is a tribal state with poor people now has India's best PDS system.

Now other states and central govt don't want subsidised food to reach rich and middle.class people to save money. So they are giving only to poor people. The problem comes from corruption now when genuine poor people hasn't been added in states like UP,.WB and Bihar thereby denying their food.rights. Their rations were gobbled up by corrupt officials or good to do people who fake their income, get free rice and then sell it to poor people to make money. It's also a political issue on a local level. Caste also plays a role.
Another issue when a migrant moves to another part or state, he cannot get PDS from the host state anymore. He can only be provided in his home address state. He can change the address to the new state and it's a bureaucratic process with delays as the host state now have to pay for the new migrants. So it takes their time.

Now all states are trying to implement universal system to feed everyone inspite of leakages. Another thing is this article talks from another media sources which means they haven't actually done any sampling or statistics on the ground itself. TN has leakages, but saying 1kg of rice out of 5 reaches the beneficiaries is pure BS. I know a lot of people who receives the benefits even though they are of middle class, my family being one.

Tamil nadu is comparatively better than other states, however as per world bank 16 percent of rural population and 12 percent on average is under poverty line in Tamil Nadu. And poverty line is 150 inr. If someone is earning 160 he is not under poverty line; hence then you have to look at wealth distribution. This is a huge topic of discussion and i am in no mood to deliver a lecture on facts. The problem is indians are sold a narrative and whole population or at least privileged are suffering from delusion of grandeur when you guys look at big numbers; big data etc. But does it change the ground realities? No facts or research would change it for you. A small thing you can do is travel a bit in your city and go to low income areas or go to adjacent villages to get an idea and tell those people how rich india is; they will explain it to you guys.
 
Last edited:
.
Tamil nadu is comparatively better than other states, however as per world bank 16 percent of rural population and 12 percent on average is under poverty line in as per world bank. And poverty line is 150 inr. If someone is earning 160 he is not under poverty line; hence then you have to look at wealth distribution. This is a huge topic of discussion and i am in no mood to deliver a lecture on facts. The problem is indians are sold a narrative and whole population or at least privileged are suffering from delusion of grandeur when you guys look at big numbers; big data etc. But does it change the ground realities? No facts or research would change it for you. A small thing you can do is travel a bit in your city and go to low income areas or go to adjacent villages to get an idea and tell those people how rich india is; they will explain it to you guys.
There goes reliability:lol::lol:List is Big

Time Inc. Network wrote a reply to an Oxfam study from January 2015[87] on inequality stating that the richest 1% at the end of 2016 will own more than half of the world's assets. However, Time pointed out that the data were based on a study from Credit Suisse. In this study, The Global Wealth Databook 2015, personal assets were calculated in net worth, meaning wealth would be negated by having any mortgages

On 28 April 2007 an Australian conservative think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission accusing Oxfam of misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act in its promotion of Fairtrade coffee.[74] They claimed that high certification costs and low wages for workers undermine claims that Fairtrade helps to lift producers out of poverty. The complaint was subsequently dismissed by the Commission.

In October 2005, the magazine New Internationalist described Oxfam as a "Big International Non-Government Organisation (BINGO)", having a corporate-style, undemocratic internal structure, and addressing the symptoms rather than the causes of international poverty – especially by acquiescing to neoliberal economics and even taking over roles conventionally filled by national governments.[65] Similar criticism came from Red Pepper magazine in July 2005[66] and Katherine Quarmby in the New Statesman in May 2005.[67] The latter article detailed growing rifts between Oxfam and other organisations within the Make Poverty History movement.

In a 2011 Columbia Journalism Review article, journalist Karen Rothmyer accused NGOs in general and Oxfam in particular of being unduly influenced by the priorities of the media, of providing inaccurate information to the press ("stories featuring aid projects often rely on dubious numbers provided by the organisations") and of perpetuating negative stereotypes which "have the potential to influence policy". She drew on earlier work by journalist Lauren Gelfand, who had taken a year away from journalism to work for Oxfam; "A lot of what Oxfam does is to sustain Oxfam" and Linda Polman, author of the Crisis Caravan; "Aid organisations are businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa."[68] In 2015, Omaar and de Waal, in Food and Power in Sudan, commented, "the 1990s have seen growing pressure for humanitarian institutions to become more accountable. There has been a succession of reviews of major operations, growing in independence and criticism."[69] They quote an OECD report, "The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Operations in Rwanda", which stated that its team "came across examples of Agencies telling, if not falsehoods, then certainly half-truths" and noted "a remarkable lack of attempts by agencies to seek the views of beneficiaries on the assistance being provided".[70]

Oxfam and others launched the Sphere Project in response, an initiative which aims to "improve the quality of assistance provided to people affected by disasters", to "develop a set of minimum standards in core areas of humanitarian assistance" and to introduce an element of accountability which had previously been lacking.

Oxfam has been criticized[84][85] for aggressively expanding its specialist bookshops, using tactics more often associated with multi-national corporations. The charity has been criticized as some claim this expansion has come at the expense of independent secondhand book sellers and other charity shops in many areas of the UK.
 
. .
Seems we will be borrowing. Along with some limited printing. But GoI hasn't said anything about printing. Yet.

It can be a blunder and hurt the economy for longer period. Here I explain.

First, I doubt the money comes from borrowing because in this day it is difficult to issue big amount of government bond. This is why Indonesian Central Bank has absorbed recent Gov Bond to finance this year budget deficit, a measure that never been done for so long and we even have made a law not to allow that to happen in the past. We change the law now to let the measure take place.

I bet it will only be done by printing money but this policy will likely to give devastating effect to Indian economy in the long term. The reason is because Indian Rupee is not like US Dollar or Yen where it has already become reserved currency. Both economy have luxury to print money to save their economy.

As basic economic reveal, printing money will lead to inflation in the longer term. In order to curb that effect, central bank needs to hike interest rate that will hurt businesses. If the money being printed is huge, it can cause hyper inflation. Weak currency like Rupee will also lost much of its value against USD if the measure like that is implemented.

You can see how Indonesian currency, Rupiah, lost its value from 2500 Rupiah against USD in 1996 into 16.000 in around early 2000. Indonesian central bank print money to save its monetary crisis at that time. And even that devastating effect still last until Today as Indonesian Rupiah is traded within 12.000-15.000 in the last 10 years.

Losing too much of Rupee value will also lead to higher burden of both government and private enterprises to pay its debt. If the lost of value is too much and your business have high debt in USD then it can create economic crisis just like Asian Financial Crisis that stroke South East Asian countries with the worst victim is Indonesia.
 
.
Tamil nadu is comparatively better than other states, however as per world bank 16 percent of rural population and 12 percent on average is under poverty line in as per world bank. And poverty line is 150 inr. If someone is earning 160 he is not under poverty line; hence then you have to look at wealth distribution. This is a huge topic of discussion and i am in no mood to deliver a lecture on facts. The problem is indians are sold a narrative and whole population or at least privileged are suffering from delusion of grandeur when you guys look at big numbers; big data etc. But does it change the ground realities? No facts or research would change it for you. A small thing you can do is travel a bit in your city and go to low income areas or go to adjacent villages to get an idea and tell those people how rich india is; they will explain it to you guys.

I am from a native village in central TN where we have 3 bus connections per day. I am also designated as belonging to Most Backward Class caste in TN. So yes, I know what I am talking about when cirytfolks don't understand the iota of issues rural folks face.

When I do hear stories of people going of hunger, generally I am shocked cos it's something I haven't seen across in my travels in my state or Kerala. But when you look up it's most likely from 3-4 states of India.
I do understand the fallacy of 150 INR as poverty line and that's the reason I told Tamil Nadu unlike other states has an universal PDS where people irrespective of their income can get subsidised food grains. Now Chattisgarh has implemented it. Other states are in various process of implementing it.

I never said TN doesn't have poverty. By any standards poverty will never go away. It has been there, and will be there. But the level of poverty is the question here. Do people.die of hunger in TN due to.their poverty? The answer is no. In India? Yes. States are working towards doing something bout it.
 
.
I am from a native village in central TN where we have 3 bus connections per day. I am also designated as belonging to Most Backward Class caste in TN. So yes, I know what I am talking about when cirytfolks don't understand the iota of issues rural folks face.

When I do hear stories of people going of hunger, generally I am shocked cos it's something I haven't seen across in my travels in my state or Kerala. But when you look up it's most likely from 3-4 states of India.
I do understand the fallacy of 150 INR as poverty line and that's the reason I told Tamil Nadu unlike other states has an universal PDS where people irrespective of their income can get subsidised food grains. Now Chattisgarh has implemented it. Other states are in various process of implementing it.

I never said TN doesn't have poverty. By any standards poverty will never go away. It has been there, and will be there. But the level of poverty is the question here. Do people.die of hunger in TN due to.their poverty? The answer is no. In India? Yes. States are working towards doing something bout it.
Oxyfam is Sham Organization Bro

Look at What

Colombian Press journal Written About them

In a 2011 Columbia Journalism Review article, journalist Karen Rothmyer accused NGOs in general and Oxfam in particular of being unduly influenced by the priorities of the media, of providing inaccurate information to the press ("stories featuring aid projects often rely on dubious numbers provided by the organisations") and of perpetuating negative stereotypes which "have the potential to influence policy". She drew on earlier work by journalist Lauren Gelfand, who had taken a year away from journalism to work for Oxfam; "A lot of what Oxfam does is to sustain Oxfam" and Linda Polman, author of the Crisis Caravan; "Aid organisations are businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa."[68] In 2015, Omaar and de Waal, in Food and Power in Sudan, commented, "the 1990s have seen growing pressure for humanitarian institutions to become more accountable. There has been a succession of reviews of major operations, growing in independence and criticism."[69] They quote an OECD report, "The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Operations in Rwanda", which stated that its team "came across examples of Agencies telling, if not falsehoods, then certainly half-truths" and noted "a remarkable lack of attempts by agencies to seek the views of beneficiaries on the assistance being provided".[70]

Pakistani Posters Are Diverting Topic
 
.
There goes reliability:lol::lol:List is Big

Time Inc. Network wrote a reply to an Oxfam study from January 2015[87] on inequality stating that the richest 1% at the end of 2016 will own more than half of the world's assets. However, Time pointed out that the data were based on a study from Credit Suisse. In this study, The Global Wealth Databook 2015, personal assets were calculated in net worth, meaning wealth would be negated by having any mortgages

On 28 April 2007 an Australian conservative think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission accusing Oxfam of misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act in its promotion of Fairtrade coffee.[74] They claimed that high certification costs and low wages for workers undermine claims that Fairtrade helps to lift producers out of poverty. The complaint was subsequently dismissed by the Commission.

In October 2005, the magazine New Internationalist described Oxfam as a "Big International Non-Government Organisation (BINGO)", having a corporate-style, undemocratic internal structure, and addressing the symptoms rather than the causes of international poverty – especially by acquiescing to neoliberal economics and even taking over roles conventionally filled by national governments.[65] Similar criticism came from Red Pepper magazine in July 2005[66] and Katherine Quarmby in the New Statesman in May 2005.[67] The latter article detailed growing rifts between Oxfam and other organisations within the Make Poverty History movement.

In a 2011 Columbia Journalism Review article, journalist Karen Rothmyer accused NGOs in general and Oxfam in particular of being unduly influenced by the priorities of the media, of providing inaccurate information to the press ("stories featuring aid projects often rely on dubious numbers provided by the organisations") and of perpetuating negative stereotypes which "have the potential to influence policy". She drew on earlier work by journalist Lauren Gelfand, who had taken a year away from journalism to work for Oxfam; "A lot of what Oxfam does is to sustain Oxfam" and Linda Polman, author of the Crisis Caravan; "Aid organisations are businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa."[68] In 2015, Omaar and de Waal, in Food and Power in Sudan, commented, "the 1990s have seen growing pressure for humanitarian institutions to become more accountable. There has been a succession of reviews of major operations, growing in independence and criticism."[69] They quote an OECD report, "The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Operations in Rwanda", which stated that its team "came across examples of Agencies telling, if not falsehoods, then certainly half-truths" and noted "a remarkable lack of attempts by agencies to seek the views of beneficiaries on the assistance being provided".[70]

Oxfam and others launched the Sphere Project in response, an initiative which aims to "improve the quality of assistance provided to people affected by disasters", to "develop a set of minimum standards in core areas of humanitarian assistance" and to introduce an element of accountability which had previously been lacking.

Oxfam has been criticized[84][85] for aggressively expanding its specialist bookshops, using tactics more often associated with multi-national corporations. The charity has been criticized as some claim this expansion has come at the expense of independent secondhand book sellers and other charity shops in many areas of the UK.

And that's how my friends an indian member at pdf took down a massive NGO and busted their years of work and research by posting a credible research based data from wikipedia.
 
.
It can be a blunder and hurt the economy for longer period. Here I explain.

First, I doubt the money comes from borrowing because in this day it is difficult to issue big amount of government bond. This is why Indonesian Central Bank has absorbed recent Gov Bond to finance this year budget deficit, a measure that never been done for so long and we even have made a law not to allow that to happen in the past. We change the law now to let the measure take place.

I bet it will only be done by printing money but this policy will likely to give devastating effect to Indian economy in the long term. The reason is because Indian Rupee is not like US Dollar or Yen where it has already become reserved currency. Both economy have luxury to print money to save their economy.

As basic economic reveal, printing money will lead to inflation in the longer term. In order to curb that effect, central bank needs to hike interest rate that will hurt businesses. If the money being printed is huge, it can cause hyper inflation. Weak currency like Rupee will also lost much of its value against USD if the measure like that is implemented.

You can see how Indonesian currency, Rupiah, lost its value from 2500 Rupiah against USD in 1996 into 16.000 in around early 2000. Indonesian central bank print money to save its monetary crisis at that time. And even that devastating effect still last until Today as Indonesian Rupiah is traded within 12.000-15.000 in the last 10 years.

Losing too much of Rupee value will also lead to higher burden of both government and private enterprises to pay its debt. If the lost of value is too much and your business have high debt in USD then it can create economic crisis just like Asian Financial Crisis that stroke South East Asian countries with the worst victim is Indonesia.

As I said printing will be a last resort. There has been various calls for printing from within the govt and opposition. But no one has commented on it yet.
And on borrowing. India has the large amount of savings from her citizens. That is nearly unparalleled. Indians like to save and give money to next gen. So when there are 1.3 B people who put their money in bank, it's a huge amount. Every year the govt borrows and pays it back. This year we will borrow more. In addition to savings, there are insurance companies (the biggest one belongs to govt), mutual funds, reserves where one can print money by selling dollars as well.
Limited printing don't hurt. This package is worth like 270B. Printing money like for 10B is kinda peanuts. But we do not know yet on how the govt is planning to raise money. Let's see.
 
.
So 1.7 lac crs was distributed to how many people? who were the beneficiaries? we know the crores of migrant workers got nothing , were charged train fare till the govt was called out on it . so where did the money go?
Do post the news where the money went if you can and enlighten me .
PS - forget my political affiliations , only stupid retards believe what this govt talks , where is the actual data where the money was spent?

So when DBT was not there, what made people like you believe the govt data? How many people got the transfers?, you need to know what are the number of accounts linked to ADHAR and minimum that many people got the money. The number of ADHAR card holders now at 1.25 billion. Considering only BPL + Senior citizens+ other beneficiaries it will be nearly 20 crore people roughly.

Look like you are going to print money for this measure. For Indonesian case, our central bank chairman has already said clearly that his institution will not print money to help government effort to ease the Covid 19 economic effect.

You always come up with such damp one liners. Print money is not an option for India. The budgetary arm of many institutions will be directed towards one.
 
.
And that's how my friends an indian member at pdf took down a massive NGO and busted their years of work and research by posting a credible research based data from wikipedia.
Well Like
Offam is Wikipedia
they given references
Wikipedia gives refrences Too
Like

In a 2011 Columbia Journalism Review article, journalist Karen Rothmyer accused NGOs in general and Oxfam in particular of being unduly influenced by the priorities of the media, of providing inaccurate information to the press ("stories featuring aid projects often rely on dubious numbers provided by the organisations") and of perpetuating negative stereotypes which "have the potential to influence policy". She drew on earlier work by journalist Lauren Gelfand, who had taken a year away from journalism to work for Oxfam; "A lot of what Oxfam does is to sustain Oxfam" and Linda Polman, author of the Crisis Caravan; "Aid organisations are businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa

Source
https://archives.cjr.org/reports/hiding_the_real_africa.php?page=all
This article was adapted from a paper (pdf) written for Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

Oxfam says poor farmers would have benefited from the move but the NCA says there is no economic case to support the charity's claims.

Starbucks denies initiating opposition to the trademark application.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6086330.stm
 
.
Well Like
Offam is Wikipedia
they given references
Wikipedia gives refrences Too
Like

In a 2011 Columbia Journalism Review article, journalist Karen Rothmyer accused NGOs in general and Oxfam in particular of being unduly influenced by the priorities of the media, of providing inaccurate information to the press ("stories featuring aid projects often rely on dubious numbers provided by the organisations") and of perpetuating negative stereotypes which "have the potential to influence policy". She drew on earlier work by journalist Lauren Gelfand, who had taken a year away from journalism to work for Oxfam; "A lot of what Oxfam does is to sustain Oxfam" and Linda Polman, author of the Crisis Caravan; "Aid organisations are businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa

Source
https://archives.cjr.org/reports/hiding_the_real_africa.php?page=all
This article was adapted from a paper (pdf) written for Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
and what makes you think it's not an agenda driven organization? Of course they hate anything publishing for poor and against corporate world.
 
.
and what makes you think it's not an agenda driven organization? Of course they hate anything publishing for poor and against corporate world.
Well its No Me but Time Magine questioning there Readability of there Study

In February 2018 an investigation by The Times newspaper found that Oxfam allowed three men to resign and sacked four for gross misconduct after an inquiry concerning sexual exploitation, the downloading of pornography, bullying and intimidation. A 2011 confidential report by Oxfam had found "a culture of impunity" among some staff in Haiti and concluded that 'it cannot be ruled out that any of the prostitutes were under-aged'. Among the staff who were permitted to resign was the charity's Belgian country director, Roland Van Hauwermeiren.[89] In the internal report, Van Hauwermeiren admitted using prostitutes at a villa whose rent was paid for by Oxfam with charitable funds. Oxfam's chief executive at the time, Dame Barbara Stocking, offered Hauwermeiren "a phased and dignified exit" because sacking him risked "potentially serious implications" for the charity's work and reputation.[90]

Oxfam did not report any of the incidents to the Haitian authorities, because "it was extremely unlikely that any action would be taken".[90] Although Oxfam disclosed details of the incident to the Charity Commission, the Commission revealed after The Times investigation that it had never received Oxfam's final investigation report and Oxfam "did not detail the precise allegations, nor did it make any indication of potential sexual crimes involving minors". A spokesperson for the Commission commented that: "We will expect the charity to provide us with assurance that it has learnt lessons from past incidents".[91] Oxfam later explained it had not given details to the Commission beyond "inappropriate sexual behaviour" because using prostitutes in Haiti was not illegal

Yes, Oxfam, the Richest 1% Have Most of the Wealth. But That Means Less Than You Think


https://money.com/oxfam-richest-1-wealth-flawed/
 
.
Well its No Me but Time Magine questioning there Readability of there Study

In February 2018 an investigation by The Times newspaper found that Oxfam allowed three men to resign and sacked four for gross misconduct after an inquiry concerning sexual exploitation, the downloading of pornography, bullying and intimidation. A 2011 confidential report by Oxfam had found "a culture of impunity" among some staff in Haiti and concluded that 'it cannot be ruled out that any of the prostitutes were under-aged'. Among the staff who were permitted to resign was the charity's Belgian country director, Roland Van Hauwermeiren.[89] In the internal report, Van Hauwermeiren admitted using prostitutes at a villa whose rent was paid for by Oxfam with charitable funds. Oxfam's chief executive at the time, Dame Barbara Stocking, offered Hauwermeiren "a phased and dignified exit" because sacking him risked "potentially serious implications" for the charity's work and reputation.[90]

Oxfam did not report any of the incidents to the Haitian authorities, because "it was extremely unlikely that any action would be taken".[90] Although Oxfam disclosed details of the incident to the Charity Commission, the Commission revealed after The Times investigation that it had never received Oxfam's final investigation report and Oxfam "did not detail the precise allegations, nor did it make any indication of potential sexual crimes involving minors". A spokesperson for the Commission commented that: "We will expect the charity to provide us with assurance that it has learnt lessons from past incidents".[91] Oxfam later explained it had not given details to the Commission beyond "inappropriate sexual behaviour" because using prostitutes in Haiti was not illegal

Are you stupid? did you read what you are posting? is it about the inequality study or some sexual misconduct?
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom