Watermelons like RK Pachauri, green outside but red inside, who spread the ugly virus of “sustainable development,” believe Capitalism is unsustainable for poor nations.
Actually, what is truly “unsustainable” is our The State.
In a nation without roads, our The State’s huge expenditures on “employment generation,” food and fertilizer subsidies, loss-making PSUs, loan waivers, and other assorted freebies for pals like the MPLADS, which are now going to be compounded with a cheap rice scheme and higher baboo wages – all this is “unsustainable” in the precise scientific sense that this huge burden on the productive few cannot be sustained any further. This verdict of unsustainability is based on sound economic science; not only theory, but also public finance. The State has reached the limits of its ability to borrow. And there is also a limit to its ability to engage in “quantitative easing,” the new term for printing rupee notes and issuing them.
All these expenditures are further unsustainable because The State must be directed towards performing its legitimate role – legitimate in the sense of classical liberals like Ludwig von Mises. Mises disavows anarchism totally. He says that State organization is necessary. His only insistence is that it should be restricted to its legitimate role. What is this role?
Without getting into that discussion, let me just say that our roads suck, there aren’t even decent footpaths in our cities and towns, garbage lies uncollected, our courts system is clogged, our police protect VIPs only, and even our air force fighter jets seem to be crashing with worrying regularity. And our The State is buying 20k crores worth of boilers and furnaces to generate electricity!
So let us be clear as to what exactly is “unsustainable.” Economic growth is eminently sustainable as far as the resources of nature are concerned, but “government growth” is not.
I saw Pachauri and Prannoy Roy engage in a huge diversion on tv last night: a “save the beaches” campaign. The worry is that there will be too many ports, too many hotels, too many mansions, and too much prosperity if The Market is unleashed on our sea shores. Roy was shocked that apart from the 12 major ports, our 7500 km long coastline has over 100 minor ports. He asked his “expert witness”: Isn’t that too much?
I find this amazing from a guy who also owns a business channel called “profit.” If we build a highway 7500 kms long, who can decide how many petrol pumps will come up and where? Or how many dhabas?
Yes, the laws of catallactics predict with apodictic certainty that if India declared unilateral free trade all the action would be along the 7500 km coast. Hundreds of free trading port cities would erupt. Thousands of such towns. There would be a huge migration of rural folk to these new urban centres of international trade. More and more real and live human beings would live better lives.
This is one way to go: To Say Humans Come First.
Then there is the watermelon way: The State Must Protect The Sand.
You decide.
I am no fan of the state and I am with you on the free trade and ports.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe there is a place in the scheme of things for restricted land use policy that promotes bio-diversity. State owned parks that are rich in flora and fauna must be preserved in order to keep Gaia alive!
~Mohit
Yes, 112 ports on a 7500 km coastline are too many. The ideal number would be like 12, or preferably 0. I say that as a member of the rich elite who go to sea beaches for diversion and don't want to jostle with the unwashed riff-raff trying to make a living there. The State should preserve the beaches! For us elites! Ok, maybe I shouldn't spell that out in so many words.
ReplyDelete@Mohit
"State owned parks that are rich in flora and fauna must be preserved in order to keep Gaia alive!"
Preserved for whom? The national parks are vast tracts of State enclosed land that are kept beyond the reach of the average guy. The rich elite have connections to visit these parks, get bookings at forest guest houses, and even (ahem) shoot a few animals. In effect, when I say flora and fauna must be preserved, I really mean, preserved for my pleasure. Let the unwashed riff-raff not make a more economic use of these resources to come out of their grinding poverty. Environmentalism is just another name for snotty elitism.
Sustainable development is nonsense
ReplyDeletehttp://chandra-armyofman.blogspot.com/2009/06/sustainable-development-is-nonsense.html
The Pachauri guy is funny. On one hand he shouts at the top of his voice about carbon emission and the degradation of the environment. And on the other hand, he flies down business class from the US to Bombay and back over a weekend...for what???
ReplyDelete....to play cricket.
Wish someone will now kick his backside the next time he speaks about the environment.
@mcla
ReplyDelete"Preserved for whom?"
I daresay for the survival of the human species.
Markets can be shortsighted. Until science can establish the causal relationship between climate change and human consumption, I would play safe and let living forests live.
I agree the rich, elite, etc. get to enjoy these things at the cost of the great unwashed.
What bothers me is the rapid (hence unsustainable) deforestation that might come about due to industrializing forest produce.
~Mohit
@Mohit
ReplyDeleteI am all for the preservation of the human species, but not for the preservation of one class of people at the cost of another. To put it another way, I don't want to save mankind at the expense of man. As it is, the environmental concerns of the elites are coming at a dire cost -- of the very poorest people on earth. If I were one of the poor I would say, hell with preservation of the human race; I want to get out of my poverty. Ideally, I would want everyone to bear the cost of preserving the natural heritage equally, but it's not possible through govt actions, however nuanced. For instance, as a city dweller, it doesn't matter much to me if agricultural land is restricted to protect forest; to a farmer it's a matter of livelihood. Any action the govt takes, will either be ineffective, because it excluded the masses, or will benefit me at their expense. Besides, govt policies tend to shield people from the full cost of their actions. This makes them shortsighted. Free markets are not inherently shortsighted.
There is no easy way out of this considering that we live in a heavily regulated world, where it's simply impossible for anyone to see the full cost of their actions. Thus no one can really make economically rational choices. Suddenly privatising forests will probably ensure that the trees disappear overnight, which will be a catastrophe for the poor as well. However, more govt regulation will only strengthen the status quo of an elite class living at the expense of the poor.
The answer is for the poor to understand that govt actions have unintended and perverse consequences, and prefer market based outcomes in all cases over govt violence based "solutions". The educated elite will always prefer govt power, because they know their class interests are fundamentally at odds with the rest of the populations. I am not surprised that Pachauri deplores Tata Nano but flies business class to watch cricket. That's the rational thing for him and his ilk to do.
Cheers!
Actually, markets are NOT short-sighted, because ordinary people think of the future of their children and grand-children.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, governments are notoriously short-sighted, because politicians think only of their terms, as do bureaucrats of the length of their posting. The former think of 5 years or less; the latter of 3 years or less.
This point has been hammered home through much of public choice theory: the fact that it is not "market failure" we face; rather, it is "government failure."
Cheers, Mr. Moron.
@Sauvik
ReplyDelete"Actually, markets are NOT short-sighted, because ordinary people think of the future of their children and grand-children."
My point is that in the absence of knowledge, you cannot "think of the future of your children..." because you know not what you do.
For instance, did the residents of Bhopal relocate because Union Carbide built an unsafe (<-- knowledge?) plant or did they choose to work for UC for economic necessity?
Nowhere did I claim that governments are far-sighted or that they are altruistic or any such thing.
I am just wary of tampering with fragile eco-systems that we (as a species) don't even understand.
Also, I am not a trained economist, I am here to try and understand your philosophy, so I'd appreciate if you recognized that I am a Moron by definition! And if you don't like morons commenting and asking questions then I'll stop, so let me know.
Cheers,
-Mr. Moron (a.k.a Mohit)
Sorry about that, Mohit. And thanks for returning to this blog.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we think about the future by saving for it. It is these accumulations of savings that we hand over to our children after we die, and they to theirs. This is our best protection against the vagaries and uncertainties of the future. Thus, it is of utmost importance that today's generation create wealth under conditions of Liberty, so that they can hand that wealth to future generations. This is why poverty is unsustainable, while prosperity via free trade and free markets is the only way to look after the interests of future generations. With resources, they will tackle the problems of their time. Without resources, they too will fail. The "watermelons" don't see this. They prescribe poverty - eternal poverty.
Second: About Bhopal: This is where tort laws should have kicked in. Union Carbide, many years ago, should have paid huge damages to the victims. Thus, torts force every person to be careful, and not injure others. We need this law.
For millennia, man has thought that nature is his enemy, something to be conquered and subdued if he is to survive. This finally led to the building of cities - places where nature was kept out and human thrived. Cities are the ant-hills of human colonists. We need to build more and more cities; a human environment. The jungle is always "out there." And there is no point thinking about it that much. Watermelons and other environmentalists do not think of these things. But I hope you will.
"I am just wary of tampering with fragile eco-systems that we (as a species) don't even understand"
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Mohit. We need to be wary of ALL EXPERTS who claim to KNOW and who tell us poor simple folk what is what.
I was trying to point out that the lack of "a priori" knowledge leads to short sightedness. (e.g. a greedy algorithm in Computer Science (when you choose the "local" best step in absence of "global" information)).
ReplyDeleteIn the case of environmental degradation in particular, this is more true. The eco-system of this globe is a vast, interconnected dependency graph and minor changes "here" can wreak havoc "there". Nonetheless, I have no reason to believe that governments will do any better at protecting it.
Agree about cities and watermelons.
~Mohit