Work is disutility.
Shopping is fun.
Reflect a while on this. Pondering over these truths will help clear many cobwebs in your mind. Like Chacha Manmohan S Gandhi’s “employment guarantee.”
Chacha is maximizing work – a disutility. In either case, the loose spending of every IAS district officer in the land is funded by taxpayers, who had “worked” to produce that wealth. We work to gain utility. We produce something useful with our work – like these words that I am now producing. We do not work in order to produce work for others. Chacha is nuts.
What would I maximize?
Why, the shopping experience, of course. So that after we have sold our output, we can exchange our surpluses for the best goods the world can offer. I would institute unilateral free trade. I would abolish the customs department and all octroi too. The entire sub-continent would become the world’s largest duty-free trading area. Every shop – even the paan-bidi shop – would be a duty-free shop. We would all succeed as consumers. It is in consumption that utility lies. Not in work.
The foolish idea of maximizing work while simultaneously closing all domestic markets to foreigners has deep roots. Gandhi embraced the charkha in order to maximize work. Gandhi disapproved of machines because they reduce work. Rahul Gandhi’s khadi kurta-pajama – the uniform of scoundrels – shows that this false idea of Gandhi is still one of the “core principles” of the Congress party. Note that Rahul Gandhi himself does no work. Yet, he wants to maximize work for all of us. And kill us as consumers too. Chacha is his party’s chosen instrument. Chacha is a “loyal” Congressman. Kamal Nutt is another “loyal” Congress gangster.
What can be done?
I suggest a strong dose of “retail therapy.” Chacha, Rahul, Sonia and Kamal Nutt should be taken to one of the new shopping malls in Delhi and forced to shop till they drop. That will teach them where utility lies.
And why don’t you, dear reader, do the same. It is the shopping season. Discover how much fun it is. How many fabulous goodies you come to acquire, which will give you so much happiness.
But be careful of not shopping till you drop. Be smart. Keep your mind ticking on the law of diminishing returns. Shop till you are ALMOST ready to drop. Then stop. And think.
We are ruled by Nutts Inc.
Is manmohan a chacha or chamcha?
ReplyDeleteI don't know much of hindi please clarify..
With work only goods & services are produced. Calling Gandhi's idea false is stupidity.Gandhi's effort was to deny british textilers the indian market by self restrain. Also to save indian artisans from hunger. Khadi isn't the uniform of scoundral because currupt politician wear it.
ReplyDeleteManmohan a chacha or a chamcha? Good question from Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteOn the comment by the second Anonymous: Gandhi neglected productivity. Which is why the chowkidar outside the gates of a modern spinning mill earns more than the dude with a charkha. Gandhi also neglected trade in urban markets, preferring "self-sufficient village economies" - which is a recipe for economic suicide. Gandhian errors in thinking run deep. Not to forget his use of State coercion to prohibit alcohol. I am not a fan of Gandhi.
Don't we produce in order to maximise consumption? Did computerisation of banks produced more 'work' or 'wealth'? Communists opposed computers bcoz it'l shrink jobs; they were proved wrong by 'software' industry.
ReplyDeleteInstead of opposing consumption of foreign textiles, better idea would have been to promote other trades like: silk, spice etc. resulting into overall increased consumption of Indians as well as foreigners.
So, you achieve more consumption not by increasing 'work' but 'production'
@Anonymous 2,
ReplyDeleteWhy do we always look from the POV of the domestic producer? You said Gandhi denied British textile mills the Indian 'market'. The same act also wanted to deny the Indian consumer British textiles.
He wanted to save artisans from hunger, according to you. The same act would lead to millions not having enough clothes (if our only source of cloth is handwoven).
Simply because the producers are a small homogenous group that can be easily identified, any move to help them is seen as noble. Without understanding that the silent hetrogenous consumption group gets screwed by every one of these measures.
I agree with Sauvik. Gandhi was great as far as civil disobedience, etc. was concerned. But his dabbling in economics & morality has made our country a victim of lousy paternalistic, protectionist governments for decades.
Did Gandhi opposed the industrialisation? British came as trader here and ruled India. If Britishers had to be kicked out, it had to be whole heartedly. That's why I find shunning 7 burning of foreign cloths appropriate during that time.
ReplyDelete