Reforms are easier to pass in autocracy, but those are not the kind of reforms one would want.

Yeah. Because corpos like this as get a say by voting with dollars.

Which really translates to bribes

That's a phrase I've never heard before: "too much of democracy".

This is just "The best government is a benevolent autocracy" without the second half, which is "the next best government is democracy". And the unsaid part of the saying is "The worst government is a malicious autocracy", which is an eventual certainty.

Democracy has it's problems, but it's better than anything else we can realistically implement.

"...our nation has too much democracy..."

Our billionaires have too much oxygen.

A little context, he is the previous CEO of NITI Aayog, the "company" in question.

Niti aayog is a government owned think tank/ company whose purpose it is to do bring and do feasibility studies of possible government policies. The person is a civil servant and this was his previous job.

The company isn't a multi-billion dollar company, it's basically the government, that too under the bureaucratic wing of the government.

Translation: "We can't have it how I want it because you fucking people don't want that"

It's wild to have that much money and not be able to afford a history book.

Since when is Amitabh Kant a billionaire?

He was an IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officer and CEO of a think-tank.

People like him can only see the world through a forest of dollar signs. Dont trust the blindness

If you just put "democracy" in quotes, then suddenly I agree with him

We already live in a corporatocracy, citizens united made sure of that.

This is out of context.

There is a tiny, tiny kernel of truth in that statement. And by in large, regardless of political beliefs, most people want a strong central government applying top down solutions to their problems. (Which can have it's own set of unintended issues)

An example might be single payer health care. A majority of voters would really like it. But it's one thing to say that and get it passed. But it's another whole ball of worms to create the nuts and bolts of such a system. Everyone has their own ideas about how it should work. And until you can get everyone to agree on the nuts and bolts in a democracy there will be difficulties. So unless you have the outright power, (something not so "democratic"), to say "This is how we are going to do it", you are going to probably end up with a gridlocked discussion and no healthcare. And if someone does have that power to force the answer - even it you don't like it - your democracy isn't what you think it is.

I mean he's got a point it's just a stupid point.