Money does not provide 2 meals?

[Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>]

Dear Professor, you state:

"Any nation that meets only these three goals is of no interest to me as
a contributor to IPI.  The nation must also provide the possibility of
at least two square meals a day for its citizens"

I wonder how the statment that was made by me, or is the key vision of
IPI, in any way implies that citizens will be without two square meals?
Wealthy India will not be able to feed its citizens 2 sq meals a day?
What are we talking about?

Are we not beginning to diverge very considerably in the basic meanings
and understanding?

First let us be clear on the semantics. Are meals to be (a) provided or
(b) earned?

If the meals can be provided as a charity, then let us all stop working
and hope for some manna to be provided to us from heaven. On IPI we are
not discussing methods to PROVIDE food to the poor. We are discussing
methods to MAKE the poor rich.

For the disabled (and ONLY for them), there is need to tax the able
bodied in order to perhaps feed them. In fact, we want to provide much
more than that for the disabled: the max. opportunity for development (a
la Stephen Hawkings or Hellen Keller

cf	http://www.wnet.org/archive/hawking/html/home.html

or 	http://www.rnib.org.uk/wesupply/fctsheet/keller.htm )

The one **single**, strongest indicator of well being is per capita
income. It is strongly correlated with other indicators, and in my view,
drives the other indicators.

That is why it is at the top of the list. The other two are equally
powerful in terms of capturing the capabilities and functionalities of
Sen. If a nation can secure max gold medals, will that indicate it is an
unhealthy nation or a healthy one? If a nation can get max Nobel prizes
will it indicate good research and hence better health or worse health?

Second, man does not live for eating food alone.

Maslow showed that food is at the BOTTOM of man's needs. After food
comes security (i.e., good Police, good housing, good banking), social
(i.e., culture and family), ego (i.e., taking to each other like this
on IPI), and finally self-actualization (becoming a Stephen Hawkings).

I do hope that the Nobel prize target represents a nation where self
actualization is more common than not. I refuse to let us be satisfied
with substistence levels in India. Particularly when that is not
necessary.

I am talking of MUCH, much more than merely 2 sq. meals a day. I think
we need to stop this carping on our basic targets and specify to India
how wealth has to be produced. Of course if you have a very clearly,
strong target, please offer it. This has been discussed before. The
reason why these 3 targets were chosen is to provide a healthy and
wealthy body, and a healthy mind.

But of course, the topic is always open. Please propose an alternative.

Sincerely,

SS









--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------