Comments by "Rutvik" (@rutvikrs) on "ThePrint" channel.

  1. 13
  2. 13
  3. 13
  4. 13
  5. 13
  6. 13
  7. 13
  8. 13
  9. 13
  10. 12
  11. 12
  12. 12
  13. 12
  14. 12
  15. 12
  16. 12
  17. 12
  18. 12
  19. 12
  20. 12
  21. 11
  22. This guy deserves a chapter in our future text books as the prime example of correlation does not equal causation. 1. His answer should have been, MH earns most of its GST in the city of Mumbai. As the financial capital, it recieves the foreign direct investment even if the economic activities happen in other states. They are one time or statutory transactions. KA/TN/HR on the other hand see this money first hand. MH was always going to see a smaller share of tax devolution, commensurate to the amount of economic activity in the state. 2. Instead he brings the cuckoo narrative around the axiom of population change. Correct me if I am wrong, but no state in the Hindi belt has a baby boomer policy around linguistic majoritarianism. South Indian TFRs dropped due to chunks of its population involved in manufacturing/ trade and relative local inflation due to economic mobility. 3. He straight up lies on population criterion being 75%, when the 14th and 15th finance commission caps it at 17.5 and 15% resp in written policy. 4. As a native of the state, Karnataka politics never revolved around the central allocation. 1.3% voted to spite the BJP, not for freebies. If anything the "son of the soil" JD(S) took the largest hit. This is simply infusing the kind of freebie politics that DMK has on to Karnataka. 5. I wonder why he focuses on BIMARU when there is another correlation that has worse cumulative ratio. Border hill states, J/K and NE India. If Bihar gets 900 for the 100 rupee it earns, all of the hill border hill states(Except HP) recieve north of(pun intended) 1000 with Arunachal at 4000. I may have a working theory on why these former set of states are in focus, it could be the percived political nature of the language spoken in Belt. 6. We could have had a far more interesting conversation if we discard propogandists like him because I bet he will walk away once his political objectives are met. Regarless of the state we need to spend more on capex instead of welfare policies so that states get to leverage their relative advantages to catch the fish instead of being fed.
    11
  23. 11
  24. 11
  25. 11
  26. 11
  27. 11
  28. 11
  29. 11
  30. 11
  31. 11
  32. 11
  33. 11
  34. 11
  35. 11
  36. 11
  37. 11
  38. 11
  39. 11
  40. 11
  41. 10
  42. 10
  43. 10
  44. 10
  45. 10
  46. 10
  47. 10
  48. 10
  49. 10
  50. 10