Just don't claim that hondo has been defending obamacare from day 1
Obamacare is shit. But it didn't cause insurance rates to skyrocket. Dumbfuck.
Right. Obamacare was supposed to stop the skyrocketing and bring it under control. With a true "public option" it had a chance of making an impact on costs. That's why Obama's Wall Street banker backers told him to drop that fucking shit yesterday as soon as he took office, and he obediently did so, handing it off to Harry Reid to give it the Fredo treatment. Nevadans are known for that.
I don't have time to research this. And this is from 2013, but it illustrates my point. Yes Obamacare didn't reduce health insurance costs. But the actual increases now are lower than they were in the past. In other words. It had Little positive effect but the many peoples perception was it had a negative effect. Which isn't true. The bill was shit but better than what we had. At least people who don't have employer provided insurance now have an easy way to find insurance.
Except that it completely killed the private market(see unsubsidized) for healthcare. It's part of why I won't go back to being a consultant. It's impossible for me to afford health insurance that ISN'T through an employer.
I still know gobs of people that just end up not buying insurance because they can't afford it and just pay the penalty instead. They are forced to pay for all of their healthcare out of pocket at offices that will take cash.
My favorite part of this is how someone like Hondo or one of my liberal friends will try to explain to me how this isn't actually a problem at all or how it's just a misconception on my part. It has nothing to do with actual rates skyrocketing or actual experiences...
You sound poor.
Ok now that that's out of the way. It didn't kill the private market. There's like 11 million people buying insurance through the exchanges. That's substantially higher than bought on the private market before.
But you bring up a good point. Why is health Care tied to employers? I know the history of why but is that a good system? There are better ways but that's where we are now.
Your friends that don't have insurance..... They are the exact people a national health Care system would help. That being said, they are in the exact same place they were before Obamacare. Well other than the penalty.... Guess it sucks to be them.
Exchanges aren't the private market. Hth.
Wait wut? They are private insurers. With plans in accordance with requirements by the government. So they can't rob you by kicking you off insurance if you get sick, for example.
But ok!!
In Soviet Russia government run markets are private markets!
You are such a monkey.
Just like medicare for all is a "free market" solution right?
Wait wut? Who said Medicare for all is free market? The comment was that exchanges aren't private market.
I'll help you.
Exchanges - Government set up "markets" where the government directs who qualifies as a provider, the government directs who qualifies as a purchaser, the government directs who can purchase what, at what price, with what level of profit, with what coverage, all with underlying taxes and subsidies for different purchasers dictated by the government, all on a government set up website.
Sounds about the same as people who claim that single payer isn't socialism. It's a "free market" solution. Sure.gif
Yes the exchanges are a regulated market. Like everything else in this country.
Ah, so it's not a "free market". So would you say the government's regulations are doing an effective job of making the market efficient?
Um no the market is not efficient. It actually would definitely be way more efficient as a true free market. They'd profit a shit ton by overcharging people and kicking sick people off their plans and dictating to doctors what treatments are the cheapest option.
Who is "they"? Are "they" a monopoly or an oligopoly? Tell me, do you buy cut rate auto-insurance or do you buy "good" auto insurance?
They is insurance companies. And they is essentially a monopoly in many counties right now cause the fucktarded county line restrictions.
Just don't claim that hondo has been defending obamacare from day 1
Obamacare is shit. But it didn't cause insurance rates to skyrocket. Dumbfuck.
Right. Obamacare was supposed to stop the skyrocketing and bring it under control. With a true "public option" it had a chance of making an impact on costs. That's why Obama's Wall Street banker backers told him to drop that fucking shit yesterday as soon as he took office, and he obediently did so, handing it off to Harry Reid to give it the Fredo treatment. Nevadans are known for that.
I don't have time to research this. And this is from 2013, but it illustrates my point. Yes Obamacare didn't reduce health insurance costs. But the actual increases now are lower than they were in the past. In other words. It had Little positive effect but the many peoples perception was it had a negative effect. Which isn't true. The bill was shit but better than what we had. At least people who don't have employer provided insurance now have an easy way to find insurance.
Except that it completely killed the private market(see unsubsidized) for healthcare. It's part of why I won't go back to being a consultant. It's impossible for me to afford health insurance that ISN'T through an employer.
I still know gobs of people that just end up not buying insurance because they can't afford it and just pay the penalty instead. They are forced to pay for all of their healthcare out of pocket at offices that will take cash.
My favorite part of this is how someone like Hondo or one of my liberal friends will try to explain to me how this isn't actually a problem at all or how it's just a misconception on my part. It has nothing to do with actual rates skyrocketing or actual experiences...
You sound poor.
Ok now that that's out of the way. It didn't kill the private market. There's like 11 million people buying insurance through the exchanges. That's substantially higher than bought on the private market before.
But you bring up a good point. Why is health Care tied to employers? I know the history of why but is that a good system? There are better ways but that's where we are now.
Your friends that don't have insurance..... They are the exact people a national health Care system would help. That being said, they are in the exact same place they were before Obamacare. Well other than the penalty.... Guess it sucks to be them.
Exchanges aren't the private market. Hth.
Wait wut? They are private insurers. With plans in accordance with requirements by the government. So they can't rob you by kicking you off insurance if you get sick, for example.
But ok!!
In Soviet Russia government run markets are private markets!
You are such a monkey.
Just like medicare for all is a "free market" solution right?
Wait wut? Who said Medicare for all is free market? The comment was that exchanges aren't private market.
I'll help you.
Exchanges - Government set up "markets" where the government directs who qualifies as a provider, the government directs who qualifies as a purchaser, the government directs who can purchase what, at what price, with what level of profit, with what coverage, all with underlying taxes and subsidies for different purchasers dictated by the government, all on a government set up website.
Sounds about the same as people who claim that single payer isn't socialism. It's a "free market" solution. Sure.gif
Yes the exchanges are a regulated market. Like everything else in this country.
Ah, so it's not a "free market". So would you say the government's regulations are doing an effective job of making the market efficient?
Um no the market is not efficient. It actually would definitely be way more efficient as a true free market. They'd profit a shit ton by overcharging people and kicking sick people off their plans and dictating to doctors what treatments are the cheapest option.
Who is "they"? Are "they" a monopoly or an oligopoly? Tell me, do you buy cut rate auto-insurance or do you buy "good" auto insurance?
They is insurance companies. And they is essentially a monopoly in many counties right now cause the fucktarded county line restrictions.
Ahhhhhhhh and who is it that created those fucktarded county line restrictions? It's almost like government regulatory burdens create perverse incentives for monopolies and oligopolies to exploit and grow in...
I wonder why there's so much more competition in less regulated markets. It's a real mystery.
I always love when someone blames a "free market" for crony capitalism and not the government for creating rent seekers in the first place.
Just don't claim that hondo has been defending obamacare from day 1
Obamacare is shit. But it didn't cause insurance rates to skyrocket. Dumbfuck.
Right. Obamacare was supposed to stop the skyrocketing and bring it under control. With a true "public option" it had a chance of making an impact on costs. That's why Obama's Wall Street banker backers told him to drop that fucking shit yesterday as soon as he took office, and he obediently did so, handing it off to Harry Reid to give it the Fredo treatment. Nevadans are known for that.
I don't have time to research this. And this is from 2013, but it illustrates my point. Yes Obamacare didn't reduce health insurance costs. But the actual increases now are lower than they were in the past. In other words. It had Little positive effect but the many peoples perception was it had a negative effect. Which isn't true. The bill was shit but better than what we had. At least people who don't have employer provided insurance now have an easy way to find insurance.
Except that it completely killed the private market(see unsubsidized) for healthcare. It's part of why I won't go back to being a consultant. It's impossible for me to afford health insurance that ISN'T through an employer.
I still know gobs of people that just end up not buying insurance because they can't afford it and just pay the penalty instead. They are forced to pay for all of their healthcare out of pocket at offices that will take cash.
My favorite part of this is how someone like Hondo or one of my liberal friends will try to explain to me how this isn't actually a problem at all or how it's just a misconception on my part. It has nothing to do with actual rates skyrocketing or actual experiences...
You sound poor.
Ok now that that's out of the way. It didn't kill the private market. There's like 11 million people buying insurance through the exchanges. That's substantially higher than bought on the private market before.
But you bring up a good point. Why is health Care tied to employers? I know the history of why but is that a good system? There are better ways but that's where we are now.
Your friends that don't have insurance..... They are the exact people a national health Care system would help. That being said, they are in the exact same place they were before Obamacare. Well other than the penalty.... Guess it sucks to be them.
Exchanges aren't the private market. Hth.
Wait wut? They are private insurers. With plans in accordance with requirements by the government. So they can't rob you by kicking you off insurance if you get sick, for example.
But ok!!
In Soviet Russia government run markets are private markets!
You are such a monkey.
Just like medicare for all is a "free market" solution right?
Wait wut? Who said Medicare for all is free market? The comment was that exchanges aren't private market.
I'll help you.
Exchanges - Government set up "markets" where the government directs who qualifies as a provider, the government directs who qualifies as a purchaser, the government directs who can purchase what, at what price, with what level of profit, with what coverage, all with underlying taxes and subsidies for different purchasers dictated by the government, all on a government set up website.
Sounds about the same as people who claim that single payer isn't socialism. It's a "free market" solution. Sure.gif
Yes the exchanges are a regulated market. Like everything else in this country.
Ah, so it's not a "free market". So would you say the government's regulations are doing an effective job of making the market efficient?
Um no the market is not efficient. It actually would definitely be way more efficient as a true free market. They'd profit a shit ton by overcharging people and kicking sick people off their plans and dictating to doctors what treatments are the cheapest option.
Who is "they"? Are "they" a monopoly or an oligopoly? Tell me, do you buy cut rate auto-insurance or do you buy "good" auto insurance?
They is insurance companies. And they is essentially a monopoly in many counties right now cause the fucktarded county line restrictions.
Ahhhhhhhh and who is it that created those fucktarded county line restrictions? It's almost like government regulatory burdens create perverse incentives for monopolies and oligopolies to exploit and grow in...
I wonder why there's so much more competition in less regulated markets. It's a real mystery.
I always love when someone blames a "free market" for crony capitalism and not the government for creating rent seekers in the first place.
Yes that's one of the many stupid things in Obamacare and yes Congress should fix it among a bunch of other things.
A truly free market is just as awful as a communism, just in different ways. Our country has been the most successful as a regulated free market. HTH
Just don't claim that hondo has been defending obamacare from day 1
Obamacare is shit. But it didn't cause insurance rates to skyrocket. Dumbfuck.
Right. Obamacare was supposed to stop the skyrocketing and bring it under control. With a true "public option" it had a chance of making an impact on costs. That's why Obama's Wall Street banker backers told him to drop that fucking shit yesterday as soon as he took office, and he obediently did so, handing it off to Harry Reid to give it the Fredo treatment. Nevadans are known for that.
I don't have time to research this. And this is from 2013, but it illustrates my point. Yes Obamacare didn't reduce health insurance costs. But the actual increases now are lower than they were in the past. In other words. It had Little positive effect but the many peoples perception was it had a negative effect. Which isn't true. The bill was shit but better than what we had. At least people who don't have employer provided insurance now have an easy way to find insurance.
Except that it completely killed the private market(see unsubsidized) for healthcare. It's part of why I won't go back to being a consultant. It's impossible for me to afford health insurance that ISN'T through an employer.
I still know gobs of people that just end up not buying insurance because they can't afford it and just pay the penalty instead. They are forced to pay for all of their healthcare out of pocket at offices that will take cash.
My favorite part of this is how someone like Hondo or one of my liberal friends will try to explain to me how this isn't actually a problem at all or how it's just a misconception on my part. It has nothing to do with actual rates skyrocketing or actual experiences...
You sound poor.
Ok now that that's out of the way. It didn't kill the private market. There's like 11 million people buying insurance through the exchanges. That's substantially higher than bought on the private market before.
But you bring up a good point. Why is health Care tied to employers? I know the history of why but is that a good system? There are better ways but that's where we are now.
Your friends that don't have insurance..... They are the exact people a national health Care system would help. That being said, they are in the exact same place they were before Obamacare. Well other than the penalty.... Guess it sucks to be them.
Exchanges aren't the private market. Hth.
Wait wut? They are private insurers. With plans in accordance with requirements by the government. So they can't rob you by kicking you off insurance if you get sick, for example.
But ok!!
In Soviet Russia government run markets are private markets!
You are such a monkey.
Just like medicare for all is a "free market" solution right?
Wait wut? Who said Medicare for all is free market? The comment was that exchanges aren't private market.
I'll help you.
Exchanges - Government set up "markets" where the government directs who qualifies as a provider, the government directs who qualifies as a purchaser, the government directs who can purchase what, at what price, with what level of profit, with what coverage, all with underlying taxes and subsidies for different purchasers dictated by the government, all on a government set up website.
Sounds about the same as people who claim that single payer isn't socialism. It's a "free market" solution. Sure.gif
Yes the exchanges are a regulated market. Like everything else in this country.
Ah, so it's not a "free market". So would you say the government's regulations are doing an effective job of making the market efficient?
Um no the market is not efficient. It actually would definitely be way more efficient as a true free market. They'd profit a shit ton by overcharging people and kicking sick people off their plans and dictating to doctors what treatments are the cheapest option.
Who is "they"? Are "they" a monopoly or an oligopoly? Tell me, do you buy cut rate auto-insurance or do you buy "good" auto insurance?
They is insurance companies. And they is essentially a monopoly in many counties right now cause the fucktarded county line restrictions.
Ahhhhhhhh and who is it that created those fucktarded county line restrictions? It's almost like government regulatory burdens create perverse incentives for monopolies and oligopolies to exploit and grow in...
I wonder why there's so much more competition in less regulated markets. It's a real mystery.
I always love when someone blames a "free market" for crony capitalism and not the government for creating rent seekers in the first place.
Yes that's one of the many stupid things in Obamacare and yes Congress should fix it among a bunch of other things.
A truly free market is just as awful as a communism, just in different ways. Our country has been the most successful as a regulated free market. HTH
Pretty much most of every failing I'm sure you would cite for the former is actually a failing of the latter. Keep trying though.
Just don't claim that hondo has been defending obamacare from day 1
Obamacare is shit. But it didn't cause insurance rates to skyrocket. Dumbfuck.
Right. Obamacare was supposed to stop the skyrocketing and bring it under control. With a true "public option" it had a chance of making an impact on costs. That's why Obama's Wall Street banker backers told him to drop that fucking shit yesterday as soon as he took office, and he obediently did so, handing it off to Harry Reid to give it the Fredo treatment. Nevadans are known for that.
I don't have time to research this. And this is from 2013, but it illustrates my point. Yes Obamacare didn't reduce health insurance costs. But the actual increases now are lower than they were in the past. In other words. It had Little positive effect but the many peoples perception was it had a negative effect. Which isn't true. The bill was shit but better than what we had. At least people who don't have employer provided insurance now have an easy way to find insurance.
Except that it completely killed the private market(see unsubsidized) for healthcare. It's part of why I won't go back to being a consultant. It's impossible for me to afford health insurance that ISN'T through an employer.
I still know gobs of people that just end up not buying insurance because they can't afford it and just pay the penalty instead. They are forced to pay for all of their healthcare out of pocket at offices that will take cash.
My favorite part of this is how someone like Hondo or one of my liberal friends will try to explain to me how this isn't actually a problem at all or how it's just a misconception on my part. It has nothing to do with actual rates skyrocketing or actual experiences...
You sound poor.
Ok now that that's out of the way. It didn't kill the private market. There's like 11 million people buying insurance through the exchanges. That's substantially higher than bought on the private market before.
But you bring up a good point. Why is health Care tied to employers? I know the history of why but is that a good system? There are better ways but that's where we are now.
Your friends that don't have insurance..... They are the exact people a national health Care system would help. That being said, they are in the exact same place they were before Obamacare. Well other than the penalty.... Guess it sucks to be them.
Exchanges aren't the private market. Hth.
Wait wut? They are private insurers. With plans in accordance with requirements by the government. So they can't rob you by kicking you off insurance if you get sick, for example.
But ok!!
In Soviet Russia government run markets are private markets!
You are such a monkey.
Just like medicare for all is a "free market" solution right?
Wait wut? Who said Medicare for all is free market? The comment was that exchanges aren't private market.
I'll help you.
Exchanges - Government set up "markets" where the government directs who qualifies as a provider, the government directs who qualifies as a purchaser, the government directs who can purchase what, at what price, with what level of profit, with what coverage, all with underlying taxes and subsidies for different purchasers dictated by the government, all on a government set up website.
Sounds about the same as people who claim that single payer isn't socialism. It's a "free market" solution. Sure.gif
Yes the exchanges are a regulated market. Like everything else in this country.
Ah, so it's not a "free market". So would you say the government's regulations are doing an effective job of making the market efficient?
Um no the market is not efficient. It actually would definitely be way more efficient as a true free market. They'd profit a shit ton by overcharging people and kicking sick people off their plans and dictating to doctors what treatments are the cheapest option.
Who is "they"? Are "they" a monopoly or an oligopoly? Tell me, do you buy cut rate auto-insurance or do you buy "good" auto insurance?
They is insurance companies. And they is essentially a monopoly in many counties right now cause the fucktarded county line restrictions.
Ahhhhhhhh and who is it that created those fucktarded county line restrictions? It's almost like government regulatory burdens create perverse incentives for monopolies and oligopolies to exploit and grow in...
I wonder why there's so much more competition in less regulated markets. It's a real mystery.
I always love when someone blames a "free market" for crony capitalism and not the government for creating rent seekers in the first place.
Yes that's one of the many stupid things in Obamacare and yes Congress should fix it among a bunch of other things.
A truly free market is just as awful as a communism, just in different ways. Our country has been the most successful as a regulated free market. HTH
Pretty much most of every failing I'm sure you would cite for the former is actually a failing of the latter. Keep trying though.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Ok. If you don't like that example. We could go back 80-100 years in our country when Rivers were catching on fire and other stupid shit. Then came the great depression. Or 30 years of deregulation prior to 2008 then the great recession. True free market that the right wing wants is not the solution either.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Ok. If you don't like that example. We could go back 80-100 years in our country when Rivers were catching on fire and other stupid shit. Then came the great depression. Or 30 years of deregulation prior to 2008 then the great recession. True free market that the right wing wants is not the solution either.
And learn how to use the quote feature.
You really are that fucking ignorant. You believe the 2008 recession was caused by too free a market? Sweet Geezus Hondo, you're a poorly educated dishonest moron.
Btw, I love how you just soldier on after your original head up the ass statement blows up in your face. Never mind you tried to lay India's problems on a free market that didn't every really exist in India.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Ok. If you don't like that example. We could go back 80-100 years in our country when Rivers were catching on fire and other stupid shit. Then came the great depression. Or 30 years of deregulation prior to 2008 then the great recession. True free market that the right wing wants is not the solution either.
And learn how to use the quote feature.
You really are that fucking ignorant. You believe the 2008 recession was caused by too free a market? Sweet Geezus Hondo, you're a poorly educated dishonest moron.
So you are saying deregulation had nothing to do with it? And that wasn't the only cause. There were many causes. And the trigger was the fed increasing the federal funds rate.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Ok. If you don't like that example. We could go back 80-100 years in our country when Rivers were catching on fire and other stupid shit. Then came the great depression. Or 30 years of deregulation prior to 2008 then the great recession. True free market that the right wing wants is not the solution either.
And learn how to use the quote feature.
You really are that fucking ignorant. You believe the 2008 recession was caused by too free a market? Sweet Geezus Hondo, you're a poorly educated dishonest moron.
So you are saying deregulation had nothing to do with it? And that wasn't the only cause. There were many causes. And the trigger was the fed increasing the federal funds rate.
And there's the strawman ass fuck. You're getting very predictable Hondo.
Make a statement where you talk straight out of your ass. Get called on it and then respond with some thing where you act like you never said what you clearly did say and then follow up with a straw man ass fuck.
But for the initial interference in the mortgage market with Fannie and Freddie. You would have never had a housing meltdown. If Banks had maintained the very same lending standards they'd had years and if mortgages were kept on their books instead of being sold off to a secondary market that was created almost entirely with the creation of Fannie and Freddie, you would have never had the 2008 recession. It was the distortion of the Free Market by the Federal government that set the wheels in motion, not the Free Market that caused the recession.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Ok. If you don't like that example. We could go back 80-100 years in our country when Rivers were catching on fire and other stupid shit. Then came the great depression. Or 30 years of deregulation prior to 2008 then the great recession. True free market that the right wing wants is not the solution either.
And learn how to use the quote feature.
You really are that fucking ignorant. You believe the 2008 recession was caused by too free a market? Sweet Geezus Hondo, you're a poorly educated dishonest moron.
So you are saying deregulation had nothing to do with it? And that wasn't the only cause. There were many causes. And the trigger was the fed increasing the federal funds rate.
And there's the strawman ass fuck. You're getting very predictable Hondo.
Make a statement where you talk straight out of your ass. Get called on it and then respond with some thing where you act like you never said what you clearly did say and then follow up with a straw man ass fuck.
But for the initial interference in the mortgage market with Fannie and Freddie. You would have never had a housing meltdown. If Banks had maintained the very same lending standards they'd had years and if mortgages were kept on their books instead of being sold off to a secondary market that was created almost entirely with the creation of Fannie and Freddie, you would have never had the 2008 recession. It was the distortion of the Free Market by the Federal government that set the wheels in motion, not the Free Market that caused the recession.
My first comment wasn't that deregulation caused the recession. Read my comment again. But yes deregulation, by both parties, was one of the contributors/causes of the recession. You are fucktarded if you think otherwise.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Ok. If you don't like that example. We could go back 80-100 years in our country when Rivers were catching on fire and other stupid shit. Then came the great depression. Or 30 years of deregulation prior to 2008 then the great recession. True free market that the right wing wants is not the solution either.
And learn how to use the quote feature.
You really are that fucking ignorant. You believe the 2008 recession was caused by too free a market? Sweet Geezus Hondo, you're a poorly educated dishonest moron.
Btw, I love how you just soldier on after your original head up the ass statement blows up in your face. Never mind you tried to lay India's problems on a free market that didn't every really exist in India.
2008 crash caused by forcing lenders to lend to people who didn't qualify? That crash? Better look at who put that crap together and ran it.
Spend some time in India and tell me how you like it.
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
Licence Raj From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search
The stagnant "Hindu rate of growth" is often attributed to the Licence Raj policies.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. (August 2015) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Article may have a pro–dereugulation, anti–labor bias. (June 2018) The Licence Raj or Permit Raj (rāj, meaning "rule" in Hindi)[1] is a term used to describe the elaborate system of licences, regulations and accompanying red tape that were required to set up and run businesses in India between 1947 and 1990.[2]
The Licence Raj was a result of the Nehru government's decision to have a planned economy where all aspects of the economy are controlled by the state and licences are given to a select few.[3] Up to 80 government agencies had to be satisfied before private companies could produce something and, if granted, the government would regulate production.[4]
Reforms since the mid-1980s have significantly reduced regulation, but Indian labour laws still prevent manufacturers from reducing their workforce without prohibitive burdens.
Contents 1 Term 2 History 3 Current status 4 See also 5 References Term The term plays off "British Raj", the period of British rule in India. It was coined by Indian freedom fighter and statesman Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari, who firmly opposed it for its potential for political corruption and economic stagnation and founded the Swatantra Party to oppose these practices.[5]
In his newspaper, Rajagopalachari wrote:
I want the corruptions of the Permit/Licence Raj to go. [...] I want the officials appointed to administer laws and policies to be free from pressures of the bosses of the ruling party, and gradually restored back to the standards of fearless honesty which they once maintained. [...] I want real equal opportunities for all and no private monopolies created by the Permit/Licence Raj.
History The architect of the system of Licence Raj was Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister.[3] Private players could manufacture goods only with official licences.
The key characteristic of the Licence Raj is a Planning Commission that centrally administers the economy of the country. Like a command economy, India had Five-Year Plans on the lines of the Five-Year Plans in the Soviet Union. Arguing that the Planning Commission has outlived its utility, Modi government disbanded it in 2014.[6]
Before the process of reforms began in 1991, the government attempted to close the Indian economy to the outside world. The Indian currency, the rupee, was inconvertible and high tariffs and import licensing prevented foreign goods reaching the market. India also operated a system of central planning for the economy, in which firms required licences to invest and develop. This bureaucracy often led to absurd restrictions: up to 80 agencies had to be satisfied before a firm could be granted a licence to produce, and, even then, the state would decide what was produced, how much, at what price and what sources of capital were used.
The government also prevented firms from laying off workers or closing factories. The central pillar of the policy was import substitution industrialisation, the belief that countries like India needed to rely on internal markets for development, not international trade, a belief generated by a mixture of socialism and the experience during the colonial period.
Current status See also: Economic liberalisation in India The Licence Raj system was in place for four decades. The government of India initiated a liberalisation policy under P. V. Narasimha Rao.[7] Narasimha Rao also had the responsibility of industries minister; he is directly responsible for dismantling the Licence Raj.
Liberalisation resulted in substantial growth in the Indian economy, which continues today.[8] The Licence Raj is considered to have been significantly reduced in 1991 when India had only two weeks of foreign reserves left. In return for an IMF bailout, Gold bullion was transferred to London as collateral, the Rupee devalued and economic reforms were forced upon India.[9] The federal government, with Manmohan Singh as finance minister, reduced licensing regulations; lowered tariffs, duties and taxes; and opened up to international trade and investment.[9]
The reform policies introduced after 1991 removed many economic restrictions. Industrial licensing was abolished for almost all product categories, except for alcohol, tobacco, hazardous chemicals, industrial explosives, electronics, aerospace and pharmaceuticals.
On 6 August 2014 the Indian Parliament raised the limit on foreign direct investment in the defence sector to 49%[10] and removed the limit for certain classes of infrastructure projects: high speed railways, including construction, operation and maintenance of high-speed train projects;[11] suburban corridor projects through PPP; dedicated freight lines; rolling stock including train sets; locomotives manufacturing and maintenance facilities; railway electrification and signalling systems; freight terminals and passenger terminals; infrastructure in industrial park pertaining to railway line, and mass rapid transport systems.
You are so hilariously ignorant that you just made an argument for free markets while trying to make an argument for planned markets.
P.S. I have actually lived in India for work. I can tell you how happy people there are about the end of the License Raj and the fact that people have upward mobility for basically the first time in their history due to....having a free market.
P.S. I have actually lived in India for work. I can tell you how happy people there are about the end of the License Raj and the fact that people have upward mobility for basically the first time in their history due to....having a free market.
India still has a number of problems including corruption, and the caste system and lingering policies from it days as a socialist state but there is no doubt that capitalism and free markets have done more to bring more people out of poverty in a short period of time than it 50 plus years as a socialist state ever did.
To blame India’s problems on free markets is mind numbing ignorance.
P.S. I have actually lived in India for work. I can tell you how happy people there are about the end of the License Raj and the fact that people have upward mobility for basically the first time in their history due to....having a free market.
Did you just stay within a mile or the airport in Mumbai or some shit? Go to Jaipur like I did. Shit is nasty there. People are so poor, kids ate ice cream dropped on the street. That's actually a true story right in front of me. No trolling or bullshit.
P.S. I have actually lived in India for work. I can tell you how happy people there are about the end of the License Raj and the fact that people have upward mobility for basically the first time in their history due to....having a free market.
India still has a number of problems including corruption, and the caste system and lingering policies from it days as a socialist state but there is no doubt that capitalism and free markets have done more to bring more people out of poverty in a short period of time than it 50 plus years as a socialist state ever did.
To blame India’s problems on free markets is mind numbing ignorance.
You have never been to India. There's essentially no government right now. At least where I went. No one follows street signs let alone taxes or regulations. Go drink some water there. Or swim in it. Even by the Taj Mahal it was nasty.
P.S. I have actually lived in India for work. I can tell you how happy people there are about the end of the License Raj and the fact that people have upward mobility for basically the first time in their history due to....having a free market.
Did you just stay within a mile or the airport in Mumbai or some shit? Go to Jaipur like I did. Shit is nasty there. People are so poor, kids ate ice cream dropped on the street. That's actually a true story right in front of me. No trolling or bullshit.
No, among other places I lived in Karur. Which is in the middle of nowhere and was a pile of dung until the end of the license raj.
I've been all over India and I still have friends and contacts there.
Those kids are that poor because of socialism. Hth.
P.S. I have actually lived in India for work. I can tell you how happy people there are about the end of the License Raj and the fact that people have upward mobility for basically the first time in their history due to....having a free market.
Did you just stay within a mile or the airport in Mumbai or some shit? Go to Jaipur like I did. Shit is nasty there. People are so poor, kids ate ice cream dropped on the street. That's actually a true story right in front of me. No trolling or bullshit.
No, among other places I lived in Karur. Which is in the middle of nowhere and was a pile of dung until the end of the license raj.
I've been all over India and I still have friends and contacts there.
Those kids are that poor because of socialism. Hth.
Comments
I wonder why there's so much more competition in less regulated markets. It's a real mystery.
I always love when someone blames a "free market" for crony capitalism and not the government for creating rent seekers in the first place.
A truly free market is just as awful as a communism, just in different ways. Our country has been the most successful as a regulated free market. HTH
Sweet fucking Geezus Hondo, tell me you're not so fucking ignorant that you actually believe India's problems are caused by a free market? You are aware that India from it's independence until well into the 1990s was a socialist state do you not?
And learn how to use the quote feature.
Btw, I love how you just soldier on after your original head up the ass statement blows up in your face. Never mind you tried to lay India's problems on a free market that didn't every really exist in India.
Make a statement where you talk straight out of your ass. Get called on it and then respond with some thing where you act like you never said what you clearly did say and then follow up with a straw man ass fuck.
But for the initial interference in the mortgage market with Fannie and Freddie. You would have never had a housing meltdown. If Banks had maintained the very same lending standards they'd had years and if mortgages were kept on their books instead of being sold off to a secondary market that was created almost entirely with the creation of Fannie and Freddie, you would have never had the 2008 recession. It was the distortion of the Free Market by the Federal government that set the wheels in motion, not the Free Market that caused the recession.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The stagnant "Hindu rate of growth" is often attributed to the Licence Raj policies.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. (August 2015)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Article may have a pro–dereugulation, anti–labor bias. (June 2018)
The Licence Raj or Permit Raj (rāj, meaning "rule" in Hindi)[1] is a term used to describe the elaborate system of licences, regulations and accompanying red tape that were required to set up and run businesses in India between 1947 and 1990.[2]
The Licence Raj was a result of the Nehru government's decision to have a planned economy where all aspects of the economy are controlled by the state and licences are given to a select few.[3] Up to 80 government agencies had to be satisfied before private companies could produce something and, if granted, the government would regulate production.[4]
Reforms since the mid-1980s have significantly reduced regulation, but Indian labour laws still prevent manufacturers from reducing their workforce without prohibitive burdens.
Contents
1 Term
2 History
3 Current status
4 See also
5 References
Term
The term plays off "British Raj", the period of British rule in India. It was coined by Indian freedom fighter and statesman Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari, who firmly opposed it for its potential for political corruption and economic stagnation and founded the Swatantra Party to oppose these practices.[5]
In his newspaper, Rajagopalachari wrote:
I want the corruptions of the Permit/Licence Raj to go. [...] I want the officials appointed to administer laws and policies to be free from pressures of the bosses of the ruling party, and gradually restored back to the standards of fearless honesty which they once maintained. [...] I want real equal opportunities for all and no private monopolies created by the Permit/Licence Raj.
History
The architect of the system of Licence Raj was Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister.[3] Private players could manufacture goods only with official licences.
The key characteristic of the Licence Raj is a Planning Commission that centrally administers the economy of the country. Like a command economy, India had Five-Year Plans on the lines of the Five-Year Plans in the Soviet Union. Arguing that the Planning Commission has outlived its utility, Modi government disbanded it in 2014.[6]
Before the process of reforms began in 1991, the government attempted to close the Indian economy to the outside world. The Indian currency, the rupee, was inconvertible and high tariffs and import licensing prevented foreign goods reaching the market. India also operated a system of central planning for the economy, in which firms required licences to invest and develop. This bureaucracy often led to absurd restrictions: up to 80 agencies had to be satisfied before a firm could be granted a licence to produce, and, even then, the state would decide what was produced, how much, at what price and what sources of capital were used.
The government also prevented firms from laying off workers or closing factories. The central pillar of the policy was import substitution industrialisation, the belief that countries like India needed to rely on internal markets for development, not international trade, a belief generated by a mixture of socialism and the experience during the colonial period.
Current status
See also: Economic liberalisation in India
The Licence Raj system was in place for four decades. The government of India initiated a liberalisation policy under P. V. Narasimha Rao.[7] Narasimha Rao also had the responsibility of industries minister; he is directly responsible for dismantling the Licence Raj.
Liberalisation resulted in substantial growth in the Indian economy, which continues today.[8] The Licence Raj is considered to have been significantly reduced in 1991 when India had only two weeks of foreign reserves left. In return for an IMF bailout, Gold bullion was transferred to London as collateral, the Rupee devalued and economic reforms were forced upon India.[9] The federal government, with Manmohan Singh as finance minister, reduced licensing regulations; lowered tariffs, duties and taxes; and opened up to international trade and investment.[9]
The reform policies introduced after 1991 removed many economic restrictions. Industrial licensing was abolished for almost all product categories, except for alcohol, tobacco, hazardous chemicals, industrial explosives, electronics, aerospace and pharmaceuticals.
On 6 August 2014 the Indian Parliament raised the limit on foreign direct investment in the defence sector to 49%[10] and removed the limit for certain classes of infrastructure projects: high speed railways, including construction, operation and maintenance of high-speed train projects;[11] suburban corridor projects through PPP; dedicated freight lines; rolling stock including train sets; locomotives manufacturing and maintenance facilities; railway electrification and signalling systems; freight terminals and passenger terminals; infrastructure in industrial park pertaining to railway line, and mass rapid transport systems.
You are so hilariously ignorant that you just made an argument for free markets while trying to make an argument for planned markets.
To blame India’s problems on free markets is mind numbing ignorance.
I've been all over India and I still have friends and contacts there.
Those kids are that poor because of socialism. Hth.