No Subject

[owner-india_policy@cinenet.net]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send mail to: 					    india_policy@cine.net
Rules of posting and administrative:	www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
Precedence: bulk

Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:24:58 -0400
From: Charudatt <charu@iced.com>
Subject: who "owns" the country, patriotism

Charu wrote:

>    Share of total value of family-owned assets in 1989
>
>    The richest 1% of families held:
>
>    45% of all nonresidential real estate
>    62% of all business assets
>    49% of all publicly held stock
>    78% of all bonds
>
>    The richest 10% of families held:
>
>    80% of all nonresidential real estate
>    91% of all business assets
>    85% of all stocks
>    94% of all bonds
>

Antony Joseph <antonyj@tm.net.my> responded:

> Your statistics interestingly  show that  capital, particularly that
which
> provides the fuel for growth in the US is controlled by a few. While
it may
> have been better if the distribution of wealth was not so drastic,
isn't it
> these few shrewd people who continuosly invest in the American people
giving
> them an edge over the rest of the world?  

This argument carries the assumption that if the wealth were more
evenly distributed then [the not so shrewd] unwashed masses would not
invest in US based organizations or in themselves. Can you support this?

> Capital formation and wealth
> distribution are both a balancing act. Accrued capital has its
definite
> advantages over thinly distributed capital although it lacks emotional
> (vote?)  appeal .

This seems to carry the assumption that if capital ownership is
distributed, it can't be utilised for matters that require large
amounts of capital.

If so, I'd disagree. There are institutions such as banks,
cooperatives, and stock markets that allow for the
concentrated application of capital without the need for concentrated
ownership. 

> I think the point that SS was trying to make was on true patriotism -
enough
> to put together a privately funded  I-Day celebration.  Can we get
India
> there?

Patriotism is a slippery concept I would rather not debate [It has
been defined, among other things, as "The last defense of a
scoundrel", I concur].

To the question, can the general populace come together and organize
privately funded community functions, I believe the answer is, Yes, as
long as they percieve it as something they support and own. The
example I cited earlier from my personal experience was the Ramlila
celebrations organized in neighborhoods. OK, it's a religious thing
but it is worth a look in terms of what makes people want to
participate and fund a community entertainment event.

-Charu