The 'Chawl' Incentive

No one should be surprised at what played out today at the Indian political theater, courtesy Mamatadi. After all it was only to expected of someone like Didi to ensure Bengal, and India (to a certain extent) remain welfare states that keep its citizenry consigned to its 'chawls'.

Its important for Didi to ensure people remain in chawls, and 'dependent' on welfare. For such dependency is what keeps the welfare state in business, and Didi firmly in the political saddle. People who remain on welfare are bound to see the likes of Didi the politician, who hands out the dole as their savior.

Dependency is something marketers desire too. Savvy marketers are those that can get consumers to assume they can't exist without their lifestyle brands. After all, its those brands that guarantee their social identity!

But then there's a difference too.

Marketer dependency is good for the economy, for it promotes fair trade. Someone sells, someone buys. Plus its willful exchange.Welfare dependency on the other hand is immoral thievery, for it takes forcefully (under the guise of welfare legitimacy) from the wage earner who's worked hard, to reward the slothful who get paid to remain where they are.

In the chawls.

On Welfare.

Way to go, Didi!