Rahul Gandhi’s latest jai kisan rhetoric doesn’t quite work

rahul gandhiRahul Gandhi 2.0 is angry-and this anger is making him take ‘potshots’ at the Narendra Modi government almost every other day. Okay, I know it is politics. And I know that he is not angry. And I know that he is trying to rediscover himself. And I know that he is trying to ensure that the party of his ancestors doesn’t become totally irrelevant in the days to come.
Rahul’s latest jibe at the Modi government came yesterday when he said in Punjab: “Does the farmer not make in India?…Your government did nothing when hailstorms destroyed their crop?”
This after he had told a farmers’ rally in New Delhi earlier this month that: “We[i.e. the Congress led UPA government] increased the MSP of wheat from Rs 540 to Rs 1400…The MSP has not changed, no benefit to farmers.”
These statements are in line with the dole based politics and economics practised by the Congress party over the years. The trouble is the country has had to pay a huge cost for this. Allow me to explain. 

The MSP is the price at which the government buys rice and wheat from the farmers, through the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other state government agencies. The MSP of rice was increased rapidly by the Congress led UPA government starting in 2007.
Between 2007 and 2014, the MSP of rice jumped up from Rs 580 per quintal to Rs 1310 per quintal, an increase of 12.34% per year. In case of wheat, the MSP started increasing from 2006 onwards. Between 2006 and 2014, the MSP of wheat jumped up from Rs 650 per quintal to Rs 1400 per quinta, an increase of around 10.1% per year.
The Table 1 shows the buffer stocks and the strategic reserves that the FCI needs to maintain at various points of time during the course of the year. 

Table 1


Now look at Table 2 which shows the stocks that FCI maintained at various points of time in 2014. A comparison of both the tables clearly tells us that FCI is stocking significantly more rice and wheat than what it is required to do. Interestingly, after the Narendra Modi led NDA government came to power, FCI has been going slow on procurement. In the earlier years the FCI was stocking even more than what it currently is. 

Table 2

As on 

Rice

Wheat

Total (in lakh tonnes)

Jan 1, 2014

146.98

280.47

427.45

April 1, 2014

202.78

178.34

381.12

July 1, 2014

212.36

398.01

610.37

Oct 1, 2014

154.22

322.63

476.85

Source: www.fciweb.nic.in


What the comparison of the two tables clearly tells us is that as the MSP prices have been increased, more and more rice and wheat have landed up with the government than what is required by it to run its various food programmes. In fact, the data clearly shows that before 2008 FCI bought as much rice and wheat as was required to maintain a buffer as well as a strategic reserve.
During and after 2008, the purchase of rice and wheat simply exploded. The reason for this is fairly straightforward. In the financial year 2008, the MSP of wheat was raised by 33.3%. In the financial year 2009, the MSP of rice was increased by 31.8%. And this led to farmers producing more rice and wheat in the years to come. This rice and wheat landed up with the government. FCI did not have enough space to store these grains and that explains why newspapers regularly carried pictures of rice and wheat rotting in the open, even though food inflation was rampant
The MSP policy run by the Congress led UPA government has now led to a situation where Indians farmers are producing more rice and wheat than what is required. In fact, influenced by this steady increase in the price of rice and wheat states like Punjab and Haryana, which have a water problem, are growing huge amount of rice and wheat. These crops are huge water guzzlers. Further, farmers are not growing enough of vegetables and fruits, where the prices have increased at a fast pace.
Also, when the government becomes dole oriented that leaves little money for it to do other things. At the end of the day there is only so much money that even a government has. As an editorial in The Financial Express points out: “This year, the government plans to spend around Rs 2.3 lakh crore on the food economy, including the food subsidy, and a very small fraction of this is for either crop insurance (imagine what that would do for farmers right now) or for creating irrigation facilities (imagine what that would do when the monsoon fails).”
Rahul Gandhi yesterday talked about the government not doing anything for the farmers after the hailstorms destroyed their crops. His government was in power for ten years what did they do on the crop insurance front? Why was the entire focus of the Congress led UPA government in making the farmer dependant on the government?
Interestingly, Rahul’s mother Sonia has written to the food minister Ram Vilas Paswan seeking a relaxation in the quality of wheat that the government buys from the farmers. As per the current regulations FCI does not buy wheat with a moisture content of greater than 14%. The Times of India reports Paswan as saying that: “permitting more moisture content beyond this level would mean the grain would be unfit for human consumption.” The newspaper also reports a food ministry official as saying: “There is no procurement of grains with more moisture content than the permitted limit. The procurement is being done as per the food safety standard law.”
This is a fair point. The government can’t be procuring wheat which is unfit for human consumption. Also, there is something majorly wrong in the state of the nation, where more than 65 years after independence, the main opposition leader suggests that the government buy wheat which is essentially not fit for human consumption.
This scenario would have never arisen if a crop insurance policy that covered a major section of the farmers had been in place. Who is to be blamed for this? Narendra Modi who came to power only 11 months back? Or the Congress party run by the Gandhi family which has been in power in each of the decades since independence? The answer is obvious.

The column originally appeared on The Daily Reckoning on Apr 30, 2015

1.2 crore vacant homes – This one number tells us all that is wrong with Indian real estate



Vivek Kaul

Anshuman Magazine, chairman and managing director of CBRE South Asia Pvt. Ltd., in a recent article writes that “around 1.2 crore completed houses” are “lying vacant across urban India”. This one number tells us all that is wrong with Indian real estate.
Even though there is a huge housing shortage in urban India, 1.2 crore completed homes are lying vacant. As the latest Economic Survey points out: “At present urban housing shortage is 1.88 crore units.”
So, we have this situation where 1.2 crore completed homes are lying vacant even though there is a housing shortage of 1.88 crore in urban India. What explains this discrepancy? “95.6 per cent [of housing shortage] is in economically weaker sections (EWS) / low income group (LIG) segments,” the Economic Survey points out.
What the huge number of vacant homes also tells us is that real estate companies have been building and selling homes at price points at which there are few takers. Why is that? The answer for that lies in the fact that homes are being built essentially for those who want to invest and speculate.
Hence, investors control the real estate market in India instead of those who want to buy and live in homes. These investors are more comfortable keeping the homes empty and not put them on the rental market. The rental yield (i.e. annual rent dividend by the market price of the home) currently varies between 2-4% depending on which part of the country you live in. Hence, the return is not good enough to compensate for the risks involved in letting the house out on rent. Given this, a lot of homes are bought and then stay locked.
The next question that crops up is why is there so much investment demand for homes? The simple answer is that the amount of black money that is being generated has gone up tremendously over the years. Global Financial Integrity estimates that between 2003 and 2012, the total amount of black money leaving the country jumped from $10.1 billion to $94.8 billion, a jump of more than 9 times.
No reliable estimates are available for the total amount of black money that would have been generated during the same period.
But what this tells us is that the amount of black money being generated has grown up manifold over the years. It is safe to say that a lot of this black money has found its way into real estate, where it is very easy to park black money. And this has pushed up real estate prices to levels at which most people cannot afford to buy a home to live in. The buying and selling of real estate is now a game played majorly between the black money wallahs.
As a recent study by the business lobby FICCI titled A Study On Widening Of Tax Base And Tackling Black Money published in February 2015 points out: “The Real Estate sector in India constitutes for about 11 % of the GDP15 of Indian Economy, as these transactions involve high transaction value. In the year 2012-13, Real Estate sector has been considered as the highest parking space for black money.”
And this has led to a situation where we have more than a crore homes where no one is living. AkhileshTilotia, makes a similar point in his book The Making of India—Gamechanging Transitions. As he writes: “Thanks to its love for real estate investments, India is in a curious position of having more houses than it has households.”
This becomes clear from the Census 2011 data. “India’s households increased by 60 million to 247 million from 187 million between 2001-2011. Reflecting India’s higher ‘physical’ savings, the number of houses went up by 81 million to 331 million from 250 million. The urban increases is telling: 38 million new houses for 24 million new households,” writes Tilotia.
Unless the black money menace is brought under control, homes will continue to remain locked and unaffordable for most Indians. Further, renting has to be made an attractive option for those owning homes. As Magazine of CBRE points out: “The Rent Control Act 1992 is slightly skewed towards tenant protection, and is aimed at controlling rent. It tries to protect tenants from eviction and from having to pay more than a fair/standard rent amount. The Act may need to be revisited to make rental housing attractive enough for landlords as well.”
If more homes at affordable price points do not become available in the years to come, more and more of our cities will become slums. As the Economic Survey points out: “Nearly 30 per cent of the country’s population lives in cities and urban areas and this figure is projected to reach 50 per cent in 2030.”
Now that is something worth worrying about.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on Firstpost on Apr 30, 2015 

Mr Chidambaram, falling inflation is not deflation

P-CHIDAMBARAM
The former finance minister P Chidambaram writes a weekly column for
The Indian Express newspaper. The latest column published on April 26, 2015, was headlined Across the Aisle: Inflation is bad, but is deflation good?.
Normally I never read economic columns written by politicians for the simple reason that you can never expect them to take a line which is different from their party line. And given that one knows what the party line is on most occasions, there is no point in reading the column. In most cases the politician tries to come up with reasons in order to defend the party line, irrespective of the fact whether that makes good economics or not.
But on this occasion I did read Chidambaram’s piece because the word ‘deflation’ caught my attention. The headline of the piece suggests that deflation is not good. Deflation is the opposite of inflation. Inflation is a situation in which prices are rising. Deflation is a situation in which prices are falling. Why is deflation not good? Once people figure out that prices are falling, they are likely to keep postponing their consumption in the hope of getting a better deal in the days to come.
If this happens, business revenues will most likely fall and so will economic growth. As business revenues fall, companies may try and maintain profits by firing people, among other things.
Those who get fired will spend money only on the most important things. Further, the firings will also have an impact on others who will fear that they might also get fired and in the process postpone expenditure. And so the deflationary cycle will work.
Hence, deflation is bad.
The only thing is that Chidambaram does not define deflation as a scenario of falling prices. As he writes: “Deflation and its consequences: The decline in the rate of inflation could be attributed to many reasons.”
Chidambaram essentially talks about a fall in the rate of inflation and defines that as deflation. A fall in the rate of inflation means that prices are rising, only that they are rising at a slower rate than they were earlier. This is very different from prices falling. The term Chidambaram should have used is disinflation, which essentially refers to a fall in the rate of inflation.
A former finance minister and a Harvard MBA to boot, should not be making a mistake in the usage of these terms. This is Economics 101.
In his column Chidambaram goes on to defend the economic policies followed by the Congress led UPA government between 2004 and 2014. Chidambaram writes that the current government has added to the woes of the farmer by “a paltry increase in Minimum Support Price (MSP), inefficient procurement, increase in prices of fertilisers, poor compensation for lost crop etc.” He goes on to suggest that the UPA tried to help the farmer in different ways: “introduction of MGNREGA in 2006 to supplement farm income/wages; farm loan waiver in 2008 to give partial relief from past debt; and generous increases in MSP between 2004 and 2014.”
Let’s look at these points one by one starting with the debt waiver which was made in 2008. The total amount of debt waived off to farmers was Rs 71,680 crore. While this one time waiver did not bring down any bank, it built in a huge moral hazard into the system. Economist Alan Blinder writes in
After the Music Stopped that the: “central idea behind moral hazard is that people who are well insured against some risk are less likely to take pains (and incur costs) to avoid it.”
The message that was sent to farmers was that in the future there was no need to repay your loans because eventually the government would waive it off. In a country where the banking penetration is low and that remains starved of credit, this was a very short sighted measure aimed at the May 2009 Lok Sabha elections.
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act(MGNREGA) was launched in 200 of the most backward districts of the country on February 2, 2006. It was extended to all rural districts from April 1, 2008. The scheme aims at providing at least 100 days of guaranteed employment in a financial year to every household whose adults are willing to do unskilled manual work.
The trouble was that MGNREGA essentially became another scheme where money was simply given away without any substantial assets being created.
As T H Chowdhary wrote for The Hindu Business Line in December 2011 “Villages cannot sustain so many unskilled labourers and not-so-literate labour. By creating useless “work” we are promoting dependency among the unfortunate rural, illiterate and unskilled population…An example of the village Angaluru in Krishna district will illustrate how good money is being thrown away for bad results. Out of 1,000 families, 800 had registered themselves as BPL, seeking work under NREGA. So far, it was 100 days at Rs. 100 per day. Even at this, 80,000 mandays of useful work in a year is impossible in a village and that too, year after year.”
Hence, MGNREGA essentially became an exercise of giving away money without any comparable increase in production and this led to high inflation.
These moves didn’t help the Congress led UPA government win many votes either. As Swaminathan Aiyar
wrote in a recent column in The Times of India: “The Congress claimed that its farm loan waiver and MGNREGA (its rural job scheme) won it the 2009 election. Really? Congress won only nine of 72 seats in three very poor states where these schemes should have helped most — Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Odisha.”
Chidambaram also wrote about the generous increase in the minimum support price or wheat and rice between 2004 and 2014. The
MSP is the price at which the government buys rice and wheat from the farmers, through the Food Corporation of India(FCI) and other state government agencies.
Between 2005-2006 and 2013-2014, the MSP of wheat was increased at an average rate of 14% per year.
In 2005-2006, the MSP for common paddy(rice) was Rs 570 per quintal. By 2013-2014 this had shot up to Rs 1310 per quintal, an increase in price of around 11% per year.
This rapid increase in the MSPs led to very high inflation in general and food inflation in particular, between 2008 and 2014.
 As economist Surjit Bhalla put it in a November 2013 column in The Indian Express “For each 10 per cent rise in previous years’ procurement prices, there is a predicted 3.3 per cent increase in the current year CPI…When the government raises the MSP, the prices of factors of production involved in the production of MSP products — land and labour — also go up.” Food inflation hurts the poor the most. Half of the expenditure of an average Indian family is on food. In case of the poor it is 60% (NSSO 2011).
To conclude, if the policies of the Congress led UPA were so pro-farmer, why did the lose the 2014 Lok Sabha election, so badly? Guess, Chidambaram’s next column can try answering that question as well. 

The column originally appeared on The Daily Reckoning on Apr 28, 2015

Recover black money from India first, Modi. Instead of making noises about what lies in Swiss banks

Vivek Kaul

Narendra Modi and his government have had quite a fascination for the black money that leaves the country. Black money is essentially money that has been earned, but on which a tax has not been paid.
During the electoral campaign for the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, Modi promised that all the black money that had left Indian shores would be recovered and Rs 15 lakh deposited in the bank accounts of every Indian. Later Amit Shah, the president of the BJP, dismissed this as a chunavi jumla.
In the budget presented in February 2015, the finance minister Arun Jaitley focussed on black money and said: “The problems of poverty and inequity cannot be eliminated unless generation of black money and its concealment is dealt with effectively and forcefully.”
At the same time Jaitley unleashed a series of measures to counter the menace of black money leaving the shores of this country. “Concealment of income and assets and evasion of tax in relation to foreign assets will be prosecutable with punishment of rigorous imprisonment upto 10 years,” was one of the measures that Jaitley spoke about during the course of his speech.
Recently, the Income Tax department issued new income tax forms which asked for a plethora of information from individuals travelling abroad. This was again seen as a step to curb black money. These forms had to be withdrawn after a wave of public protests.
As per the Global Financial Integrity report titled Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2003-2012, around $439 billion of black money left the Indian shores, between 2003 and 2012. What is interesting is that in 2003 the total amount of black money leaving India had stood at $10.1 billion. By 2012, this had jumped more than nine times to around $94.8 billion. In comparison, the money leaving China during the same period grew by less than four times during this period.
Given this, one really can’t blame the government for being overtly worried about the black money leaving the country. Also, black money that remains in the country has some benefits. Cambridge University economist Ha-Joon Chang explains this in his book Bad Samaritans—The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations and the Threat to Global Prosperity, in the context of a minister taking a bribe (which is also black money, given that the minister is not going to declare the bribe as an income).
As he writes: “A bribe is a transfer of wealth from one person to another. It does not necessarily have negative effects on economic efficiency and growth.” If the minister taking the bribe decides to spend/invest that money in the country, it has a positive impact on economic growth, as the spending creates economic demand and the investment creates jobs. At least in theory, the idea seems to make sense.
In comparison, the black money leaving the country is a total waste. As Chang writes: “A critical issue…is whether the dirty money stays in the country. If the bribe is deposited in a Swiss bank, it cannot contribute to creating further income and jobs through investment—which is one way odious money can partially ‘redeem’ itself.”
Once we take this factor into account Modi government’s crackdown on black money leaving the shores of the country starts to make immense sense. But the question is how good are the chances of recovering the money that has already left the shores?
There is a great belief in India that all the black money is lying with banks in Switzerland. But this belief is incorrect. As Chang writes: “Switzerland is not a country living off black money deposited in its secretive banks…It is, in fact, literally the most industrialized country in the world.”
Data released by the Swiss National Bank, the central bank of Switzerland, suggests that Indian money in Swiss banks was at around Rs 14,000 crore in 2013. In 2006, the total amount had stood at Rs 41,000 crore.
The reason for this fall is simple. Over the last few years as black money and Switzerland have come into focus, it would be stupid for individuals or companies sending black money out of India, to keep sending it to Switzerland.
There are around 70 tax havens all over the world. And so this money could be anywhere. Getting all this money back would involve a lot of international diplomacy and cooperation. Also, the question is why would tax havens return this money. The economies of many tax havens run because of this black money and no one undoes a business model that is working.
An estimate made by the International Monetary Fund suggests that around $18 trillion of wealth lies in international tax havens other than Switzerland and beyond the reach of any tax authorities. Some of this money must have definitely originated in India.
Long story short—it would be next to impossible to get back any of this black money.
Now let’s get back to domestic black money. As per Chang this money if invested properly can create jobs as well as economic growth. In the Indian case a lot of this money gets invested into gold and real estate. Money going into gold does not create any jobs. And money that goes into real estate has driven up home prices in particular, all over the country, to extremely high levels. Most middle class Indians cannot afford to buy a home now.
Given this, it makes tremendous sense for the government to crack down on domestic black money, instead of making noises about recovering black money that has already left the shores of this country. Further, focus should be on ensuring that the number of people paying income tax goes up in the years to come.
In short, the black money menace first needs to be tackled domestically.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on DailyO on Apr 27,2015

Jibe specialist Rahul Gandhi needs to understand why ‘Make in India’ matters

rahul gandhiVivek Kaul

In his new avatar, Rahul Gandhi, the current vice president of the Congress Party and successor to the throne that has been kept warm for him over the last ten years, has become a jibe specialist.
His latest jibe has been at the ‘Make in India’ programme. “The prime minister talks about ‘Make in India’. No one does more ‘Make in India’ than the farmers of Punjab. They have made this country stand (on food grains production),” the Gandhi family scion, who recently returned from a 57 day foreign sojourn,
told the media earlier in the day today (April 29, 2015).
This potshot was uncalled for, simply because no nation has gone from being a developing country to becoming a developed country without the support and the rapid expansion of its manufacturing sector, which is what the ‘Make in India’ programme is all about.
As Cambridge University economist Ha-Joon Chang writes in
Bad Samaritans—The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations & the Threat to Global Prosperity: “History has repeatedly shown that the single most important thing that distinguishes rich countries from poor ones is basically their higher capabilities in manufacturing, where productivity is generally higher, and more importantly, where productivity tends to grow faster than agriculture and services.”
India has failed to latch on to a manufacturing revolution. The services industry was India’s big hope. But services by their very design have certain limitations. As Chang writes: “There are certainly some services that have high productivity and considerable scope for further productivity growth—banking and other financial services, management consulting, technical consulting and IT support come to mind. But most other services have low productivity and, more importantly, have little scope for productivity growth due their very nature (how much more ‘efficient’ can a hairdresser, a nurse or a call centre telephonist become
without diluting the quality of their services?).”
Also, for the services sector to flourish a strong manufacturing sector is required because that is where the demand comes from. Hence, as Chang puts it: “This is why no country has become rich solely on the basis of its service sector.” This is something that Rahul needs to understand.
India needs a strong manufacturing sector which it currently lacks. The reason is simple. Only a vibrant manufacturing sector can create enough jobs for the 13 million Indians who enter the workforce every year. The ‘Make in India’ programme is a step in that direction.
In his interaction with the media Rahul further said: “When the poor do ‘Make in India’, is it not ‘Make in India’? Is it something else?” What does this statement even mean?
Rahul’s concern for agriculture may be genuine, but a simple point he needs to understand is that there way too many Indians dependent on farming. Agriculture forms around 18% of the gross domestic product and employs more than 50-60% of Indians, depending on which estimate you trust.
Only 17% of who work on farms survive only on money they make from their farm. Everyone else does some extra work. As Mihir Sharma writes in
Restart—The Last Chance For the Indian Economy: “Our agriculture simply does not earn enough; and it has too many people…We no longer need to ensure that enough food is grown; for decades, we have been growing enough food. The country that invented granaries cannot build enough to store its vast stockpiles of grain; and yet we plant and harvest more.”
A major reason for this has been a rapid increase in the minimum support price(MSP) of wheat and rice, during the Congress led UPA government. The MSP is the price at which the government buys rice and wheat from the farmers, through the Food Corporation of India(FCI) and other state government agencies. Rahul told a farmers’ rally in New Delhi earlier this month: “We increased the MSP of wheat from Rs 540 to Rs 1400…The MSP has not changed, no benefit to farmers.”
But what the Gandhi family scion does not realize is that this rapid increase in MSP has led to other major problems. As Sharma writes: “It distorts the choices that farmers make—those who should be finding ways to grow vegetables, which grow more expensive every year, are instead growing wheat we no longer need.”
It has also led to a situation where a state like Punjab which is essentially a semi-desert is growing a large amount of rice through the extensive use of underground water. This has led to water table falling rapidly over the years.
Given these reasons, Rahul Gandhi needs to get his economics right. The country has suffered enough over the decades for the
garibi hatao politics of the Congress party. Sadly, Rahul and Congress continue to practice the garibi hatao politics of doles. What we need now are jobs and more jobs. And those jobs can only be created through the rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector.
This bit of wisdom is nothing new. It was known nearly 300 years back as well. As Chang writes: “[Robert] Walpole [the first British prime minister] knew this nearly 300 years ago, when he asked George I[the British King at that point of time] to say in the British Parliament: ‘nothing so much contributes to promote the public well being as the exportation of manufactured goods and the importation of foreign raw material.’”
Being in the opposition, Rahul obviously needs to criticize the government. The ‘Make in India’ programme in its current form is a little more than a marketing slogan. If this slogan needs to be turned into a reality, there is a lot more that needs to be done—from improving the ease of doing business to labour sector reforms. Nothing much seems to be happening on these fronts.
Why can’t Rahul criticize this for a change? It might just turn out to be a real reinvention than the forced “angry young man” image that he seems to have adopted in the recent past.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on Firstpost on Apr 29, 2015