Quote from traderNik:
I understand that English probably isn't your first language, but did I understand this correctly? You are saying that the caste system in India is desirable? You're saying that from the point of view of economic output, it is desirable to have hundreds of millions of people systemically marginalized, as opposed to increasing their personal productivity?
Also, with regard to 'government propping up non-performing members', it is my understanding that there is a quota system in place for Indian government jobs, which stipulates that members of the lower castes must comprise xx percentage of the work force. I believe this is the case in some of the southern Indian provinces at least. I could be wrong but that is my understanding.
I agree with the comment above that India has to get its population growth under control. This is obviously much harder to do in poor rural populations.
I am American and a Libertarian who does not believe the role of any government is too coddle members of society who are living off new deal economics. The only good thing about the new deal was the creation of the SEC. The New Deal represented a significant shift in political policy in the U.S., with its more lasting changes being increased government control over the economy and money supply, intervention to control prices and agricultural production, the beginning of the federal welfare state, and the promotion of trade union organizations. I was not saying that the caste system was desirable; just trying to make a point that was taken the wrong way. We do have a societal caste system here, it has to do with money- which equates to education and opportunity.