![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksOne of the recurring pleasures of watching events in the emerging world is to see the marches in the streets protesting against ay removal of subsdies on basic foodstuffs.
Democracy, as they, say, has many flaws, and generally wins only because the alternatives are worse. Three flaws that spring immediately to minds are:
a) too much democracy causes voter burn-out
b) too much democracy making too many posts electable leads to poor administration (see elected sheriffs, elected banking commissioners, elected judges, in the US, etc)
c) democracy leads to short-term gains (re-election) that result in long-term losses (economic deterioration)
It's this last point that is reflected in many governments instituting subsidies for such diverse staples as tortillas (Mexico), bread (South Africa), third-party motor insurance (India) and transport (er, still in Moscow, I think). The reason for these subsidies coming into play is that they are vote-winners and they don't appear to cost that much money. The problem is that, once a subsidy is in place, it's very difficult to take away. And if you get a sudden increase in the cost of the staple, the cost of the subsidy increases dramatically. Even changing the value of the subsidy slowly, in line with inflation, is difficult. This results in some serious distortions in food prices, distortions that grow with time.
Anyhoo, they tried to double the bus fare in Hunan, central China, over the Chinese New Year. Result? 20,000 people marching the streets. Bus company backs down.
Rural China is a less happy place than people think. There's a lot of wealth in China, but most of it is along the coastline. Rural China is less poor than it was, in absolute terms. But it's much poorer than it was in relative terms. Riots are quite common.
The solution? The Chinese government is pumping in billions of dollars in the form of farm subsidies (which shows that subsidy-solutions are not limited to democracies). This won't solve the problem; it will merely postpone it.
+++++++++
Having no pride, I returned to $2-$4 and $1-$2 ring games on Noble last night, plus a couple of hundred hands at $1-$2 on Party. I won some money back. Only a fraction, but at least it was an uptick.
_________
Democracy, as they, say, has many flaws, and generally wins only because the alternatives are worse. Three flaws that spring immediately to minds are:
a) too much democracy causes voter burn-out
b) too much democracy making too many posts electable leads to poor administration (see elected sheriffs, elected banking commissioners, elected judges, in the US, etc)
c) democracy leads to short-term gains (re-election) that result in long-term losses (economic deterioration)
It's this last point that is reflected in many governments instituting subsidies for such diverse staples as tortillas (Mexico), bread (South Africa), third-party motor insurance (India) and transport (er, still in Moscow, I think). The reason for these subsidies coming into play is that they are vote-winners and they don't appear to cost that much money. The problem is that, once a subsidy is in place, it's very difficult to take away. And if you get a sudden increase in the cost of the staple, the cost of the subsidy increases dramatically. Even changing the value of the subsidy slowly, in line with inflation, is difficult. This results in some serious distortions in food prices, distortions that grow with time.
Anyhoo, they tried to double the bus fare in Hunan, central China, over the Chinese New Year. Result? 20,000 people marching the streets. Bus company backs down.
Rural China is a less happy place than people think. There's a lot of wealth in China, but most of it is along the coastline. Rural China is less poor than it was, in absolute terms. But it's much poorer than it was in relative terms. Riots are quite common.
The solution? The Chinese government is pumping in billions of dollars in the form of farm subsidies (which shows that subsidy-solutions are not limited to democracies). This won't solve the problem; it will merely postpone it.
+++++++++
Having no pride, I returned to $2-$4 and $1-$2 ring games on Noble last night, plus a couple of hundred hands at $1-$2 on Party. I won some money back. Only a fraction, but at least it was an uptick.
_________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 02:53 pm (UTC)It's not about pride, it's about maximising your profit. If the most profitable place to play is 1/2 or 2/4 then that's what you play. I remember when I looked through the Razz tables and concluded that I was best off playing 8/16. The rest was just variance. I really should post that month of Razzness, it's just that compiling that stats is going to be so very very painful.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 03:00 pm (UTC)The question as to why so many hundreds of billions of euros need to be collected through indirect taxation and distributed to the lucky olive farmers, vine growers, goat herders, etc etc has never been answered ... in fact it is rarely even asked.
matt
no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 08:02 pm (UTC)Titmus
no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 03:02 pm (UTC)Such joy it brought me for months...