Deficit Budget - Surplus Budget

One state has surplus budget and another state has deficit budget. By this, can we say that the first state is better than the second state?

There are two organizations of equal size. One is having huge profit, and another is having minimum profits. Can we say that, the first company is better than the second company?

Except those who understand the economics, many people think that, the first state or organization is better than the second state or organization.

For any state or organization, the way to check the health of the economy is not, whether the budget is deficit or surplus, or the organization is in profits or losses. One should see the growth and the investments that it had made which can give good returns. If the state or organization has invested in fields which can give very good returns, then even if it has deficit budget/less profit, it would be better than the other state or organization which has surplus budget/more profit, but has not invested anywhere. A good entrepreneur will never keep surplus budget or profits. They will always invest that money somewhere else for better returns in the future.

Amazon is a very good example of an organization which has less profits, but economically good. They never work to meet the present quarter's results, and never meet the expectations of the Wall Street. They work only for the long run and invest significantly for the long term business. Because of that, their profits are small. It is not the company to invest to get short term gains. But, if anybody is looking for long term gains, it is one of the best companies.

During the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra state had deficit budget, and Telangana state had surplus budget. By showing that, people of Telangana always criticize Andhra people that, Andhra people robbed Telangana. They had huge money and Andhra depended on them. If we look little deep in that, it would be clear that, Andhra had invested in much better way and Telangana did not invest properly.

The growth of a state mainly depends on the education of the people and infrastructure in the state. If a state invests in education and infrastructure for the state even by getting loan, that would always give very good returns. Even if they have huge debts and is in deficit budget, still that state would be considered as having strong economy.

At the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh, the education level of Andhra is way higher than the education level of Telangana. [I think, this may be the only one which everyone unanimously agree including Telangana and Andhra People.] That's the reason why, Telangana people felt that, they would lose their jobs, because, they cannot compete with Andhra people. That's why, they brought Gentlemen Agreement, and many other bills, so that, Telangana people are secure.

At the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh, many areas of Andhra had electricity, and that was one of the biggest revenue generator for the state government. Whereas in Telangana, only 7 towns and 11 villages had electricity in 1957. The agriculture in Andhra was way ahead than the agriculture in Telangana. In Andhra, people were using the electricity for agriculture, whereas that was not the case in Telangana. The infrastructure is very less in Telanagana when compared to Andhra.

Andhra had invested money in Education and infrastructure a lot and that's why, it was in deficit budget. Whereas, in Telangana, they kept all their money without investing anywhere. That's why, they had surplus budget. It does not mean that, Telangana is richer than Andhra. If both are kept as two separate states, Andhra would have been many times superior to Telananga. Unfortunately, they are asking to separate the state, after significant investment flew to Telangana from Andhra.