The New Nation - Internet Edition

As reported recently by the media, high production cost of farming has caused shutdown of scores of poultry farms all-over the country resulting in supply shortage of poultry birds and eggs to the market. Soaring prices of poultry feed have significantly contributed to the increased production cost against the low selling prices of chickens and eggs, causing huge financial losses to small and medium farmers. Besides this, the outbreak of bird flu in the poultry farms in the recent past also struck a serious blow to the booming poultry business as farm owners had to cull many of their chickens. Whatever compensation they received in this regard were not adequate, which also put a negative impact on the poultry farmers. On the other hand, imposition of 33 per cent duty on the import of poultry feed raw materials in the budget for 2007-2008 fiscal year has caused a19 per cent increase to poultry feed prices.

According to reports, the price of a kilogram of poultry feed is now Taka 21-23. In October last year the price of per kilogram of poultry feed was Taka 13-16. Farmers apprehend that the price is likely to increase further in the coming days due to the effect of the imposed duties. The production cost of each egg is Taka 4.20 and each kilogram of chicken meat is Taka 80 against the selling price of each egg at Taka 3-95 and chicken meat at Taka 70-72 a kilo respectively. Suffering huge losses due to spread of deadly avian influenza, many small farm owners are reluctant to restart business. One owner was paid only Taka 3 lakh compensation for culling poultry birds against his investment of Taka 11 lakh. He could not start poultry business again in the last eight months after the government culled layers of his farm on March 23 this year.

Moreover, middlemen fix the price of eggs and meats and they are reportedly cashing in profit depriving the farmers, as most of them cannot sell their products directly. The price of poultry feed, raw materials like soya-meal, dry fishes and bone-meal has increased in the international market and it coupled with 33 per cent duties imposed in the annual budget hit poultry farming, according to the president of Bangladesh Poultry Industries Association. Instead of imposing duties in these crucial days of the industry that provides huge employment opportunities in the country, the government should provide fund and other facilities adequately for its

smooth running and expansion. The poultry owners have repeatedly appealed to the government to reduce the duties on the poultry feed raw materials but the authorities are yet to pay heed to their appeal. The government should reduce as much as possible the duties, if waiver is not possible, with a view to supporting the country's growing poultry industry that feeds the huge domestic market and employs thousands of people.

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) organised a seminar the other day. Chairman of TIB, Professor Muzzafar Ahmed who presided over it informed the participants that his organisation has been scrutinising the aid distribution to victims of cyclone Sidr. TIB’s scrutiny so far has reportedly led to finding out considerable instances of lack of enthusiasm and insufficient monitoring of the distribution of relief and rehabilitation materials among the storm afflicted people. The storm had devastated 15 districts in the southern parts of the country. The latest World Bank estimate says that losses in the neighbourhood of 21 thousand crore Taka was suffered by the regional economy as a consequence. Overcoming the effects of the cyclone and resuming normal life, specially gainful economic activities, are very dire challenges for the people of those areas. But the TIB seminar complained that neatly planned and implemented action programmes are not being noted for this.

The relief and rehabilitation programmes are not going well in the southern districts, according to the TIB which has reportedly found evidences of favouritism and inefficiency in the distribution of relief materials and rehabilitation activities. In some areas, allegedly, the distribution process is plagued by corruption of chairmen and members of the local bodies. These persons are also accused of distribution of relief materials on the basis of political loyalties of the recipients. It is not that government has been not prompt in allocating resources to mitigate sufferings and facilitate renewal of traditional vocations in the affected areas. But in many cases, members of local bodies in charge of the operation are resorting to the familiar misdeeds of the past such as giving only a part of the money to the cyclone victims while pocketing the rest. In other cases they are giving this money only to their favoured ones while denying the same to other storm victims with whom they have political or other differences. The ones who show signs of protesting such crimes are threatened that they would get nothing if they attempt to report these things to high ups in the administration. Similar misappropriation of resources and corruption are alleged in the distribution of cash also among fishermen, boatmen and handloom operators to help them resume their vocations.

Allegations such as these and voiced by TIB, indeed, call for a swift response from the government. Particularly, such complaints are very odd. From the highest level of the government , more focussed attention will have to be given to these issues. It must be ensured that none is bypassed while relief and rehabilitation measures are implemented, all victims of Sidr are aided as nearly adequately as possible. The same is supremely required for economic recovery of not only the affected region but also the national economy as a whole.

Laurent Belsie

The number of personal bankruptcy filings in the United States increased more than fivefold between 1980 and 2004. By then, more Americans were filing for bankruptcy than were graduating from college or getting divorced."

The number of personal bankruptcy filings in the United States increased more than fivefold between 1980 and 2004. By then, more Americans were filing for bankruptcy than were graduating from college or getting divorced. When Congress reformed bankruptcy laws two years ago, its aim was to crack down on those who were using bankruptcy as an easy way to escape their debts. The reform made filing for bankruptcy more difficult by requiring debtors with higher incomes to repay more, by making it much more complicated and expensive for all debtors to file, and by increasing the number of debtors who are ineligible for bankruptcy. These reforms caused the number of filings to drop dramatically - from 2 million in 2005 to 600,000 in 2006.

But the reforms had an unintended effect, contends Michelle J. White in Bankruptcy Reform and Credit Cards (NBER Working Paper No. 13265). While bankruptcy filings dropped, financial distress increased. How did this happen?

The answer is that by making it harder for consumers to escape their debts, the new law dramatically reduced lenders' losses from default and bankruptcy. As a result, they started lending more, even to consumers with bad credit. Credit card debt increased more quickly during the past two years than at any time during the previous five years.

Consumers should have responded to the new harsher bankruptcy law by borrowing less, which would have lowered their risk of getting into financial distress. But not all consumers behaved in this rational way. Instead, many behaved shortsightedly and took advantage of the greater availability of credit to borrow more than they could easily handle --- ignoring the risk of financial distress. (Economists refer to this shortsighted behavior as "hyperbolic discounting" - consumers who are hyperbolic discounters intend to start paying off their debts immediately, but each month they consume too much and end up postponing repayment until the following month. So their debts steadily increase.)

The new bankruptcy law exacerbated the problem of shortsighted consumers borrowing too much, because it prevented many of them from using bankruptcy to limit their financial distress.

Many consumers in financial distress are unable to file for bankruptcy under the new law, because they cannot afford the costs of filing, cannot meet the new paperwork requirements, or are ineligible. This means that their debts will not be discharged and they will remain vulnerable to creditors' collection calls and to wage garnishment that may take funds they need for basic necessities. Because of the new bankruptcy law, consumers can end up in deeper financial distress than would have been possible before 2005.

Survey evidence presented by White supports the idea that most debtors get into financial distress because of shortsighted behavior, rather than because they behave rationally but experience adverse events. In one survey of bankruptcy filers, 43 percent pointed to "high debt/misuse of credit cards" as their primary or secondary reason for filing. Another survey in 2006 found that two-thirds of those who sought credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy cited "poor money management/excessive spending" as the reason for their predicament, compared to only 31 percent who pointed to loss of income or medical bills.

White argues that lowering the costs of filing for bankruptcy would help debtors who are in the worst financial distress by making it easier for them to file. But changes in bankruptcy law cannot solve the basic problem of shortsighted consumers borrowing too much, since these consumers generally ignore the provisions of bankruptcy law until after they are in financial distress. Instead, White argues that changes in credit market and truth-in-lending regulation are more likely to work because they motivate lenders to lend less to the most vulnerable consumers.

Les Picker

A typical comparison of a high-spending area and a low-spending one means a 50 percent difference in health care spending intensity…This disparity is associated with a 1.6 percentage-point lower mortality rate among heart emergency patients. Based on that estimate, the additional cost of a statistical life-year-saved is on the order of $50,000."

Health care spending is a major concern in the United States, amounting to over $2 trillion per year or 16 percent of GDP. These figures are expected to increase with the aging of the population and are likely to strain government budgets and private-sector profitability. And, there is controversy over exactly what we are getting for that health care spending.

Among counties or regions within the United States, there are large disparities in spending, yet health outcomes are remarkably similar. One study of Medicare data found that end-of-life spending levels -- a measure of treatment intensity that controls for the health outcome -- are 60 percent higher in high spending areas of the United States than in low spending areas. Yet there is no difference across regions in five-year mortality rates after such health events as heart attacks or hip fractures.

One difficulty that arises when comparing regions is that populations in worse health may receive greater levels of treatment. For example, at the individual level higher spending is strongly associated with higher mortality rates, because more is spent on sicker patients. At the regional level, long-term investments in capital and labor also may reflect the underlying health of the population.

In Returns to Local-Area Health Care Spending: Using Health Shocks to Patients Far From Home (NBER Working Paper No. 13301), author Joseph Doyle compares outcomes of patients who are exposed to different health care systems that were not designed for them: patients who are far from home when a health emergency strikes. These visitors vacation in areas that provide different levels of health care. They may have a health emergency in an area that spends a great deal on patients or in one that tends to spend less. By comparing similar visitors across these locations, Doyle is able to use differences in health outcomes to shed light on the returns to health care spending, at least in emergency situations.

He finds that if the medical emergency occurred in a high-spending area, the patient was significantly more likely to survive. This result comes from analyzing groups of counties with similar lodging prices that are also popular tourist destinations -- areas that are likely to be close substitutes in terms of vacations, and that provide credible variation in health care systems.

In particular, Doyle uses data from hospital discharges in the state of Florida -- one of the most frequently visited states, which also gathers a wealth of data on patient characteristics. A typical comparison of a high-spending area and a low-spending one means a 50 percent difference in health care spending intensity. Doyle finds that this disparity is associated with a 1.6 percentage-point lower mortality rate among heart emergency patients.

Based on that estimate, the additional cost of a statistical life-year-saved is on the order of $50,000 -- similar to the estimate from health improvements over time, and well below the typical value of a life-year-saved of $100,000.

Doyle's results also confirm earlier findings of little relationship between spending and mortality among the populations the health care systems are designed to serve. Instead, those who have a serious health emergency far from home are exposed to different health care systems, but they are unlikely to affect the resources available in the systems.

Doyle points out that visitors choose their destinations, and if relatively healthy individuals were to choose high-spending areas, then his main results would reflect these differences. However, his estimates are robust across different types of patients, including those with various income levels, and within groups of destinations that can be characterized as close substitutes.

The returns to spending are lower in places where the visitors were more likely to select the destination with the health care system in mind -- this suggests that Doyle's main results may understate the benefits of health care spending.

Dr. Abdul Ruff

It is a known fact that the government agencies effectively control the activities of Mosques across the country through various "elected" bodies existing for looking after the Mosque affairs. Information is being passed on to the concerned personnel for a "necessary action" and the action taken a report reaches the concerned authorities. Harassing the Muslims inside the Mosque takes place by the people in charge of Mosques, including the security unnoticed by the general masses who offer prayers. This is therefore the Babri Mosque was never raised in Indian Mosques on the eve of the December 06, in stead some other issues were touched upon in the sermons.

Any action initiated by the state for the benifits of the people is most welcome, but India has nurtured ill-feelings toward Muslims right from 15 August 1947 and its intereference with Mosques cannot but do further injustice to Muslims..The situation in Kashmir-Jammu is extremely explosive. Security personnel in their ambition to display their own power on innocent Muslims, makes a hell out of those coming to pray or for ziyarat. Who should not enter and pray is generally decided by the state agencies and the "concerned" people stop them from doing so, directly or quasi-mode.

The Chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference S A S Geelani was barred from addressing the Friday congregation at Jamia Masjid in Jammu of JK. Geelani, who arrived in Jammu two days ahead of Friday, had gone to offer prayers at the main mosque in the walled city in the Muslim majority area of Talab Khatijkan on Friday afternoon. Before prayers started, he, as usual, rose to speak but was reprimanded by the Imam of the mosque, reportedly under the government instruction. After the prayers, Geelani told reporters that the attitude of the Imam in denying him the right to speak on the religious matters was under the 'dictates of the government'. He said, 'The government was trying to take control of mosques and curbing the rights of the people to express themselves on religious matters.'

In fact governments in India have taken it as their legitimate right to interfere in religious affairs of Mosques by using their networking. Believers have very little or no knowledge of such nefarious affairs affecting the spiritual life of Muslims. On their own part, Indian Muslims themselves have become immunized to adultery of their religion, owing to longtime strategies of the governments to keep Islam under their full control. Muslims only are eagerful to play into their dirty hands. On the name of socialisation and national integrity Muslims in India have been successfully Hinduised, quite systematically, though not fully converted into Hindus, while a the same time harassing them and denying them their legitimate dues. Most Muslims in government and other private jobs, under the pressure of "terrorism" strategy of the governments, try to adjust themselves with the ethos of Hinduism and display themselves as being Hindus.

So much so, Muslims in political parties including Muslim League, and other sympathisers, consider getting a free trip to Saudi Arabia for performing holy Hajj than defending the Babri Mosque and they repeat the government argument that Mosque does not exist now and they should forget about it all together and think of their own future in Hindu India. Like other community leaders, Muslim leaders seek favors like jobs for their own tribes and relatives and for those who can make sumptuous bribes in advance. These Muslims feel gratified that they are included in committees and delegations. The League leaders currently enjoying the fruits of Foreign ministry by touring and making plenty of fortunes .No wonder, under these circumstance, Muslims prefer privileges from the government agencies than to rub shoulders with them and earn their wrath.League people are being misused by the governements to divert the attention of Muslims from the cause of Babri Mosque and these people influence the Mosques in a conspiratorial manner.

One does know if government of India and Kashmir government considers Jammu being outside the borders of the forthcoming Kashmir republic. But right now Jammu is very much part of JK and stopping a Kashmiri from addressing the Muslims in a Mosque in Jammu is shocking. But the Kashmiris are divided and there is no unified voice for their right of self determination and Indian government has very wisely used its politicians and, bureaucracy and military to keep them split and fight each other spoiling their struggle. As such Indians by and large think India would not allow self-determination of Kashmiris. They argue that Iraq and Afghanistan are under US control, many nations are under China's control while Chechnya and other nations have been made to fall in line in Russia, where the majority of Russians just hate Chechen Muslims.

Of course anything done by the state for the well-being of Islam, the Muslims and their benefits is a different matter altogether. But India drinking hatred for Muslims although cannot be expected to do any thing good for them in India, because their only concern is the majority Hindus. "Terrorism" plank perpetrated by the USA and India does not permit any good thoughts about Islam and Muslims.

It is the foremost duty of every Kashmiri to talk about their self determination, as Indians did during the "British Raj" in India. Geelani is constantly harassed by keeping him house arrest (already 72 times) and other restrictions because he, unlike pro-Indian leaders in Kashmir fueled and "oiled" by New Delhi, sincerely seeks right of self determination for Kashmir. Until Kashmiris achieve their goal, Geelani and others have every right to address people any where in India, including the Jammu Muslims.

(Freelance writer & columnist)