Arjun Barua
Member
- Messages
- 650
-
Bhangra discussion is still going strong. Join us in our Facebook group!
New user registration has been closed (as it was entirely spam). We encourage you to post in our Facebook group, even if it's a followup to an existing thread. BTF will continue to be archived and hosted here - Saleem
India plans huge 'liberty' statue
- Thread starter Arjun Barua
- Start date
imakhilyou37
Member
- Messages
- 286
That's more than one in every three haha.
That's insane though, I didn't know that statistic.
It'll boost tourism, to make more $$. I'm guessing that's why they're doing it.
That's insane though, I didn't know that statistic.
It'll boost tourism, to make more $$. I'm guessing that's why they're doing it.
Not exactly. You guys have good intentions but unfortunately, you guys are wrong. 
Okay, read through this entire thing to understand it: You have $4.5 million.
1. Give it to the poor. If you gave the poorest people who have less than $1, $10, then what happens to those who have $2? They get screwed. Trying to make everyone equal doesn't work out to well. If you simply donate the money, inflation will occur and you're back to step 1.
2. Buy food and give it to the hungry. Okay, a bit better rationalization. But what happens to the guy who was selling food for like 0.25 cents to barely make his living? With some free food around, he goes out of business. When all the free food is gone, the economy collapses because no one is selling food anymore.
In summary of this statement, any sort of donation LEADS to dependence on outside help. It's the wrong way to approach the problem.
I come from a family of highly travelled tourists. We go to 2-3 places every year (Mt. Kilimanjaro, Egypt, Australia last year). I've been to India as a tourist to places like New Dehli and South India. South India has some of the craziest and most beautiful temples/tourist attractions, but makes it inconvenient for tourists to scout it out because there are no sanitary hotels, places to eat..etc. If you have bigger and better 5-star hotels..., more tourists will come. These hotels will need workers, which they will get from the local community, which essentially adds money into their economy. Also tourism does indeed help the economy. (Little kids can sell photos..etc)
OBVIOUSLY, it's not what we want for our motherland. We don't want to tourify our country, but it's the best option for our country. I use to think the same way, but this would honestly be the best option. Good hotels need incentives to be made. A liberty statue will bring the incentives. If the area is well accessible, tourists will come and boost the economy.
India has the highest potential for tourism and there are areas in India that sustain themselves on tourism, until it can begin to support themselves. For those who have been to Akshardham and the Bahai temple in New Dehli, can you not say that this is fantastic?
Okay, read through this entire thing to understand it: You have $4.5 million.
1. Give it to the poor. If you gave the poorest people who have less than $1, $10, then what happens to those who have $2? They get screwed. Trying to make everyone equal doesn't work out to well. If you simply donate the money, inflation will occur and you're back to step 1.
2. Buy food and give it to the hungry. Okay, a bit better rationalization. But what happens to the guy who was selling food for like 0.25 cents to barely make his living? With some free food around, he goes out of business. When all the free food is gone, the economy collapses because no one is selling food anymore.
In summary of this statement, any sort of donation LEADS to dependence on outside help. It's the wrong way to approach the problem.
I come from a family of highly travelled tourists. We go to 2-3 places every year (Mt. Kilimanjaro, Egypt, Australia last year). I've been to India as a tourist to places like New Dehli and South India. South India has some of the craziest and most beautiful temples/tourist attractions, but makes it inconvenient for tourists to scout it out because there are no sanitary hotels, places to eat..etc. If you have bigger and better 5-star hotels..., more tourists will come. These hotels will need workers, which they will get from the local community, which essentially adds money into their economy. Also tourism does indeed help the economy. (Little kids can sell photos..etc)
OBVIOUSLY, it's not what we want for our motherland. We don't want to tourify our country, but it's the best option for our country. I use to think the same way, but this would honestly be the best option. Good hotels need incentives to be made. A liberty statue will bring the incentives. If the area is well accessible, tourists will come and boost the economy.
India has the highest potential for tourism and there are areas in India that sustain themselves on tourism, until it can begin to support themselves. For those who have been to Akshardham and the Bahai temple in New Dehli, can you not say that this is fantastic?
Kinnell, your logic is flawwed in so many ways I dont even know where to start. If you think a $4.5 million dollar statue is more important than dying homeless in India, then you need to re-evaluate a few things in life. An injection of $4.5 million into the economy will not cause inflation to occur. Hell the U.S. injected billions into our economy and it hasnt really cause any noticeable inflation at all. We all know that rising prices are a result of "speculation" and a few other factors. By your logic its more important to fancy up the hotels while 80% of your country can hardly afford to feed themselves... I'm guessing that you also think the Ambani's new $1 billion dollar home is also not a waste of money?
- Messages
- 1,928
kinnell that is the definition of the 'trickle down' theory and i'm not sure how much i agree with it as best practice.
money shouldn't be donated because as you said free food or free clothes are detrimental to hard-working merchants (donating money within your own money supply will not cause inflation though)
what i think waleed and others are implying is that this money should be invested in the country, meaning providing better means for education, health, or safety of the poor, maybe something that betters their services or even creates jobs for them. simply catering for the highest tier of wealth may not be the best way to help the lowest 50%. it's led to the gated communities article we saw elsewhere and the HUGE income gap in India.
money shouldn't be donated because as you said free food or free clothes are detrimental to hard-working merchants (donating money within your own money supply will not cause inflation though)
what i think waleed and others are implying is that this money should be invested in the country, meaning providing better means for education, health, or safety of the poor, maybe something that betters their services or even creates jobs for them. simply catering for the highest tier of wealth may not be the best way to help the lowest 50%. it's led to the gated communities article we saw elsewhere and the HUGE income gap in India.
Vick >
I respect your opinion, but I would request that you not take this to a personal level. How do you plan on investing this $4.5 million dollars? If you say it won't cause inflation because it's a small amount, that seems reasonable. But would you give it to a select poorest people in select poor villages? Would you build homes/provide water/food for these people? That would make the most sense, right? But after your donation is done, how will they sustain themselves? Who will continue building homes, maintaining them, who will get them food?
Saleem >
You bring up great points. I do agree that money should be invested in the country. In the long-run, better schools, better hospitals and better infrastructure is best for the economy. But education does take time and it will take many years for improvements to be seen in the actual community. In the end, it's about education, right? You educate the people, they can do bigger and greater things and run their communities by themselves.
But that's where I see a problem. You get paid much more in the cities and essentially most of the people will run there, leaving their communities behind. If they get enough money, they'll move their families into the cities. That's how my grandparents did it and that's how its done now. The communities relatively stay the same regardless of education. In addition, it takes at least 10 years or so for a proper education to become some sort of an engineer, doctor, teacher..etc in which you can positively give back to your community. That's a lot for investment into a community that can barely feed themselves.
Everyone >
I'm not a cold-hearted bastard, if I gave that impression. My main point is that building this statue is not a complete waste of money. It will help the areas around the tourist spot economically and it is a good option. India has FANTASTIC potential for tourism (and I have been around to various places in the world), and I believe that it needs to tap into this potential.
Tourism creates jobs NOT for the highest tier of the wealth, but for the poorest. Sure, the hotel tycoons make great money, but hotels need workers to clean the pools, clean the rooms, serve the clients, cook the food..etc. Things that will not require a legit education and almost everyone can do with a 1 hour training session. This creates jobs essentially on-the-spot, right? It's short term. (Suppose it takes 1 year to build the actual building of the hotel). Plus, workers will always be needed as well, so if people go to the cities, there will be people to replace them.
This is a debate. Please treat it as such. I would really appreciate it if personal comments are avoided.
I respect your opinion, but I would request that you not take this to a personal level. How do you plan on investing this $4.5 million dollars? If you say it won't cause inflation because it's a small amount, that seems reasonable. But would you give it to a select poorest people in select poor villages? Would you build homes/provide water/food for these people? That would make the most sense, right? But after your donation is done, how will they sustain themselves? Who will continue building homes, maintaining them, who will get them food?
Saleem >
You bring up great points. I do agree that money should be invested in the country. In the long-run, better schools, better hospitals and better infrastructure is best for the economy. But education does take time and it will take many years for improvements to be seen in the actual community. In the end, it's about education, right? You educate the people, they can do bigger and greater things and run their communities by themselves.
But that's where I see a problem. You get paid much more in the cities and essentially most of the people will run there, leaving their communities behind. If they get enough money, they'll move their families into the cities. That's how my grandparents did it and that's how its done now. The communities relatively stay the same regardless of education. In addition, it takes at least 10 years or so for a proper education to become some sort of an engineer, doctor, teacher..etc in which you can positively give back to your community. That's a lot for investment into a community that can barely feed themselves.
Everyone >
I'm not a cold-hearted bastard, if I gave that impression. My main point is that building this statue is not a complete waste of money. It will help the areas around the tourist spot economically and it is a good option. India has FANTASTIC potential for tourism (and I have been around to various places in the world), and I believe that it needs to tap into this potential.
Tourism creates jobs NOT for the highest tier of the wealth, but for the poorest. Sure, the hotel tycoons make great money, but hotels need workers to clean the pools, clean the rooms, serve the clients, cook the food..etc. Things that will not require a legit education and almost everyone can do with a 1 hour training session. This creates jobs essentially on-the-spot, right? It's short term. (Suppose it takes 1 year to build the actual building of the hotel). Plus, workers will always be needed as well, so if people go to the cities, there will be people to replace them.
This is a debate. Please treat it as such. I would really appreciate it if personal comments are avoided.
Buddy I went to highschool in India. Trust me when I say, building a stupid statue for tourism is a complete waste of money. How about investing the money in some decent roads? How about developing a reliable electrical grid? I've seen India's problems first hand, the country does not need a statue to revive it's tourism. The temples in the south, the palaces in Jaipur and the Taj Mahal are doing just fine. There is a ton to see in India without the statue being erected. I've been to the poorest of poorest places and to some of the richest in India, and there is a world of a difference. There are parts of the country where you dont get electricity for 12 hours a day. There are parts where you have to walk miles to get water. And then you have to boil the water, then you have to wait for it to cool before you drink it. This is what India really is. What you see in Mumbai and Delhi is not India. Most of India is rural and still years behind the rest of the world. Yet the Indian government thinks building a statue is a great idea. I agree that creating revenue streams is a good thing, but a statue is not exactly a gold mine where the world will flock to see it. It will have a very minimal affect on India's economy. It sure as hell wont make anyone rich. I don't really care if the money goes to the poor or not, it should go towards improving India's infrastructure.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Vick here. You don't need to waste 4.5 mil on a new statue. It's like spending all of your extra money on nice flowers and fountains and stuff outside your house so everyone else can see it, when you don't have running water or heat inside your house. It's stupid. I don't think the "trickle down" theory would work very well in India, considering that since India's economy's gotten stronger, the rich have just gotten richer and the poor gotten poorer.
Yes, your experiences growing up in India are completely worth more than my experiences in India. I will absolutely agree that you would know way more about the intricacies about the daily needs of people in India than me.Vick said:
I would argue that you have one perspective in the whole picture from the needs of the people at this moment. Would you not agree with me that multiple perspectives should be taken into account in order to make major decisions? Should not the people in charge take a look at the entire picture to see what would be the best decision for the most people in the long term?
Those are great suggestions. I would agree that those would be the best way to spend the money and retract my previous statement that tourism would be the best option. You are completely correct and you have convinced me.Vick said:
I respectively disagree. I can consider myself a tourist of some sort. [England, Spain, Greece, Italy, Turkey, France, Germany, Tanzania, 42 states in the US, Egypt, Australia...etc] I have seen how successful tourist spots have been run and how well they are doing. Yeah, Taj Mahal is doing really well, but there are other masterpieces in India that are not being maintained at all or preserved enough. There are opportunities for improvement.Vick said:
I'm sure you agree with me when I say India not only is one of the oldest civilizations, but has the richest of heritages with great figures like Asoka, Shivaji, Rana Pratap Singh, Akbar, Rana Sangha, Gobind Singh, Padmini , Chandragupta and Puarava to name a very very very few. Successful tourism will allow India's and our heritage/historical traditions to become accessible to the rest of the world. Places like Shivaji Obelisk Memorial (I think that's what it is called) are being neglected.
I agree. As I said before, I agree with you and these things should take priority. But let's say you build a plumbing system to a rural village. Do you not need to educate someone to maintain this system in this village? As you provide villages with newer and newer technology, there is a risk in the village becoming reliant on it. If that technology breaks down, the reliance can be deadly, especially if there is no one in the village that can fix it.Vick said:
I completely agree with you that it is the government's responsibility to maintain/build roads, provide water systems and provide educational opportunities. You have convinced me that there are other things that should take priority.Vick said:
However, the liberty statue is not an uneducated approach and should not be treated like one at all. Yes, it should not be the first choice, but it should not be the last choice either. Tourism will provide revenue stream, as you said, which will allow surrounding communities to begin to sustain themselves. Local businesses may be able to gain more profits with tourism, and use these to invest in better technology and make themselves more efficient. In addition, you make Indian heritage more accessible to the rest of the world.
Arjun Barua
Member
- Messages
- 650
I wonder if you all caught this sentence in the article:
Moves to erect the statue have been described as a ploy to win local support ahead of elections next year.
This appears to be the driving factor behind the decision to erect the statue, and the same can be said of just about any decision in Indian politics. I believe the issue of corruption must be addressed before any of these other infrastructural/economic changes can take place. But how to do it?
Moves to erect the statue have been described as a ploy to win local support ahead of elections next year.
This appears to be the driving factor behind the decision to erect the statue, and the same can be said of just about any decision in Indian politics. I believe the issue of corruption must be addressed before any of these other infrastructural/economic changes can take place. But how to do it?
Arjun Barua
Member
- Messages
- 650
lol... This is the message I got when I hit the "reply" button in this topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7558082.stm
Mixed feelings about India's future
I thought about creating a new topic, but it made more sense to just bring this one back to life.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7558082.stm
Mixed feelings about India's future
Meistro
Asi Shounk Nu Karaiyaan Muschaan Kundiyaan...
- Messages
- 2,065
Kinnell, you mentioned that there are many tourist attractions in india that are not being maintained or preserved properly. I 100% agree with you. I was pretty disappointed when i first went to the Taj mahal. Look how dirty the environment is outside those walls! Agra is a sh*t hole. How about using this sum of money to restore these sites? how about hiring some real tour guides rather than some random joe off the street looking to make some extra cash. India is full of rich and beautiful history. The temples, the castles, etc. Who wants to visit a liberty statue thats a month old when you can see a palace that's 500 years old?
Arjun Barua
Member
- Messages
- 650
Indian economy's biggest challenge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7557856.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7557856.stm