PoorNoMore — ஏழைகளே இல்லாத உலகம்

For Governments Operational Adoption of the Resource Standard Why Governments Are Looking for a Different Framework Most governments today face a common structural tension: Employment remains unstable. Essential prices remain volatile. Welfare systems grow but do not close. Fiscal pressure increases without structural resolution. Monetary tightening stabilises inflation but weakens output. The Resource Standard (RS) addresses these issues not through expansion of entitlements or monetary experimentation, but through operational alignment of existing state capacity . It is not a new ideology. It is an execution framework. What RS Allows a Government to Do A government adopting RS can: Guarantee continuous access to productive employment. Anchor essential prices through predictable procurement. Stabilise food and supply systems. Reduce welfare dependency structurally. Improve fiscal sustainability through deployment rather than contraction. Strengthen currency cre...

  India’s Problem Is Not the Rupee. It Is Our Fear of Using the State. Every time the rupee weakens, India replays a familiar script. The past is blamed, public institutions are scolded, and the ghosts of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi are summoned as cautionary tales. The assumption is simple: India’s economic fragility is the residue of excessive state ambition. That assumption is wrong. India’s difficulty has never been an overbearing state. It has been an unfinished developmental state , abandoned just as the binding constraints that once justified caution were lifted. For four decades after independence, India operated under a genuine external limitation. Fixed exchange rates, scarce foreign currency, and import dependence imposed real ceilings on growth. Fiscal prudence in that world was not ideology; it was necessity. Within those limits, India built something remarkable: a nationwide administrative spine, public-sector banks capable of directing credit, scientific a...

Free Trade Agreements, Exports, Exchange Value of Currency and its downward movement There exists a profound misunderstanding in India - and in many countries with respect to the relevance of exports to domestic economy, exchange value of currency with other countries’ currencies, its downward movement, forex reserves, FDI, and the meaning of economic success. This misunderstanding is not merely academic; it has shaped policy in ways that suppress domestic prosperity while elevating nominal indicators that do not correspond to real wealth. At the center of this confusion lies a failure to recognize a foundational truth: The domestic economy is the total focus and fulcrum of economic policy. Everything else - exports, exchange rates, capital flows - must be structured around it. Real Wealth vs Nominal Constructs Real wealth consists of goods and services: food, housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, skills, and productive capability. These are tangible, consumable, and life-enh...

Last week, Parliament witnessed a familiar spectacle. The Union Budget was tabled, dissected, praised, criticised, televised, and argued over endlessly. At the same time—almost unnoticed—the report of the 16th Finance Commission  was placed before the House. There was no serious debate. No sustained media explanation. No public interrogation of its implications. That silence is not incidental. It is consequential. Because Finance Commission reports matter more than Budgets —and because this silence conceals a deeper constitutional failure: India continues to design fiscal federalism without confronting its own monetary standard. Budgets Allocate Intent. Finance Commissions Allocate Power. A Union Budget is an annual policy statement. A Finance Commission report is a five-year constitutional settlement . Budgets decide what the Union plans to do this year. Finance Commissions decide what States are able to do for half a decade. Every State government—regardless of ...

Recent commentary on rising State government debt — including remarks by in an interview to — reflects a persistent misunderstanding of public finance in a modern monetary economy. The framing treats government debt as if it were household or corporate debt: something that must be “paid back”, that risks insolvency, and that burdens future generations. This view may sound intuitive, but it is analytically wrong — and dangerously so when applied to States like . Let us unpack this carefully. 1. Government debt is not like household debt Households and firms are users of the currency. Governments — at least the Union government — are issuers of the currency. When the Union government issues currency or treasury securities, it is not “borrowing” in the conventional sense. Both currency and government bonds are IOUs of the same issuer . The difference is simple: Currency pays zero interest Treasury securities pay interest Government debt, therefore, is best understood as an...