A column by Niranjan Rajadhyaksha of Mint set me thinking. He seems to have done some number-crunching and has come up with interesting information on where the Indian economy stands as compared with, particularly, China, whose economy is said to have overtaken Japan's recently. This para is particularly noteworthy:
The average Indian earned $255 in 1980, while the average Chinese earned $313. Thirty years later, there is a yawning gap between the average incomes of Indians and Chinese: $1,124 and $3,999, respectively. India keeps company such as Bhutan ($2,042), Djibouti ($1,369), Pakistan ($1,067), Senegal ($1026) and Zambia ($1,317); even Sri Lanka ($1,806) is ahead of us. China is in the same range as countries such as Macedonia ($4,560), Peru ($4,949), Thailand ($4,402), Bosnia and Herzegovina ($4,302), Jamaica ($4,601) and Ecuador ($4,328).
Obviously, there is something very wrong with India's economic policies - but before we get into that, let us look at another statistic Niranjan offers:
There is another way of looking at the issue of a large economy with very low average incomes. Twenty-two million Australians produce almost the same value of annual output as 1.2 billion Indians do. In other words, the average Australian produces nearly 55 times more than an average Indian. That is a rough indicator of the large gap in the output per worker in the two countries. Indians need access to capital, credit, skills and markets to climb the productivity ladder. It is bound to be a long and arduous journey.
In the portion of the text above that I have italicized, Niranjan, a trained economist, has hit the nail on the head - we need Capital, without which we cannot "climb the productivity ladder." However, this certainly need not be "a long and arduous journey." If this nation is short of Capital, it can import it, offering higher returns than available in saturated, developed markets. Towards this end, anyone from abroad who wishes to invest in India, and India's future, should be welcomed - but our The State inevitably obstructs them, as in the case of retailing. There is also the issue of importing second-hand Capital goods from abroad - which our moronic The State is strongly opposing. Actually, most of the machinery used in Nehru's steel plants was imported second-hand. Actually, many of our low-cost airlines operate second-hand aircraft. I see no reason why all our poor entrepreneurs should not be able to access second-hand Capital equipment. This is the fastest way to climb the productivity ladder. Machines are good for us - and Gandhi was wrong, as always.
Let us now turn our attention to retailing - an area where foreign Capital is being denied entry because of obstruction by The State. Now, retailing is an area where there are enormous productivity gains to be made. As Peter Bauer's pioneering field studies in Africa and Asia showed, the distribution chain which "breaks down bulk" - from wholesale to retail - is extraordinarily long and inefficient in poor countries. If foreign retailers are allowed to inject much needed Capital in this vital area, huge efficiency gains can be made all around. Ultimately, let us never forget that it is the poor consumer - the forgotten little man - who will gain the most. Real estate and construction will benefit hugely - and our cities and towns will gain as well.
Why is The State blocking all this? From what I could gather, it seems the excuse being paraded around is the health of our kirana stores - the little shops which now form the lowest rung of the distributional chain. Theoretically, this is nothing but Luddism - a very Gandhian mental disease. But I do believe that, as usual, our The State is being hypocritical. Allow me to explain why I think so.
The other night, while I was "under the influence," and my mind was silently raging against all the economic repression unleashed by this socialist The State, my memory was suddenly jogged and I recalled a great big multi-storeyed building on the outer circle of New Delhi's Connaught Place called "Super Bazaar." In the 1970s, this Super Bazaar was the great socialist supermarket - and, of course, it was run by an IAS officer. I am sure it made losses. Funny how they never thought about the kirana wallahs then.
Even today, in New Delhi, this socialist The State runs many retail shops that actively compete with the small businessman - like Kendriya Bhandar.
And as for Goa, where I now live - most of our provisions are bought from a government supermarket - a co-operative - that occupies prime space in Chaudi, our nearest market town. This government supermarket is hugely popular, and the small shopkeepers here also manage to survive quite well, just as they do in New Delhi, or in London, where almost all the "corner shops" are owned by Indians and Pakistanis.
So, when Niranjan writes that our climb up the productivity ladder is "bound to be a long and arduous journey," I must insist that the only reason it appears so is because of State intervention. Remove this intervention - and we will be on an escalator. We will progress fast and smooth.
As I often say - Rukawatein Hatao, Garibi Apnay Aap Hutt Jayegi.
Translated: Remove the obstacles, and poverty will vanish on its own.
This Socialist, Gandhian, Luddite. Interventionist The State can never be an agent of "development." It is only when this The State is totally removed from the economic arena that development will occur.
Chew on that, folks.
The first thing we need to accept is that communism, socialism, Global Warmingism, elitism, etc are not the name of any real disease. They are merely the symptoms of the disease. The name of the disease, which is the root cause of all the ills that plague the society, is Altruism. Because Indians have accepted altruism as a moral ideal, they are ideologically defenceless against the bloated government.
ReplyDeleteFor thousands of years people have been led to believe that the best possible way of life is the one that is devoted to the welfare of others. So instead of living for ourselves, we should dedicate our lives to the welfare of our neighbour, who should dedicate it to his neighbour and so on and so forth.
Altruism is completely against human nature. The maker, if there is a maker, has made us in such a way that we achieve great things ONLY when we are motivated by a selfish motive.
If you render help to someone for whom you truly care, then that is not altruism. Altruism is only when you do something purely on compassionate grounds. You feel complete contempt for someone, you hate him to the limit, or you don’t even know him, and yet you are forced to help him in the name of a strange moral or legal doctrine – that is altruism.
If a writer creates a literary or philosophical piece without any financial remuneration then that is not altruism. Why? Because a writer still has the creative satisfaction. Financial compensation is not the only form of compensation possible to human being. If a writer writes a good book, an article, or a blog for free, and other people read it, then that by itself is a form of compensation. Money is not everything in life.
People can also feel compensated if they have creative satisfaction, or any other form of satisfaction.
Indians and people in many other countries are ideologically defenceless against large governments and huge tax regime, because we have accepted altruism as the ultimate moral ideal. This needs to change.
Altruism is the greatest evil. All charities are bad. Socialist government is the biggest charity of all, and hence it is the worse evil. People need trade and not aid. More lives in the world are being destroyed by so called philanthropists than by any other group of people. The road to hell is “really” paved with good intentions.
@Anoop - very very true! Sounds like Rand!
ReplyDeleteEven flowers dont bloom because we find them pretty - they bloom to procreate - same with birds singing! Its the naked self interest of procreation that leads to the flowers blooming and birds singing! If we enjoy the song the bird is not concerned with that!
sorry.dont buy the altruism is an evil propaganda.charities are NOT bad.no wonder ms ayn rand's self acknowledged lack of felicity with the english language has caused much heartburn and a bad rap for freedom lovers.
ReplyDeleteall human activities which do not violate another human being's life or property are just fine.
people can indeed be altruistic -like a buddha or even a mises :whose intellectual gifts were not for self gratification,but to awaken others.
you might not like altruism,but its like saying that just because we are all individuals first,we should not worry about others.thats antithetical to human beings living ina group.if we really were individualistic,we would all be recluses.instead,we live in a society -giving and taking benefits.always looking out for oneself,but knowing where to cross the line.nobody needs to tell us where to cross the line.least of all the state.
Mises was not altruistic. Lets not insult him by heaping him in the category of the altruists.
ReplyDeleteMises was a selfish individualist. Everything he did was for his own satisfaction. He firmly believed in a free and fair society and he wanted to live in that kind of society and hence he wrote his philosophical works. He had his own political and social agenda; he was motivated by the desire for living in a free society. The chance to express his philosophy was the best possible payment that he could receive. And he received it.
The problem with us is that we think that money is the only form of payment suitable for human being. That may be true for an Indian politician or a hawker or a worker for NREGA project. But it is not true for a truly creative person. A creative person also gets paid through the satisfaction that he gets from seeing his work turn into reality.
Anonymous is right. The bird does not sing for anyone, flowers don’t bloom to please human beings. Similarly Mises did not write for everyone else. He wrote them for himself, because he believed that it was the best possible thing that he could do in his life.
If Mises had written a leftist treatise just because he wanted to provide satisfaction for people for whom he had complete contempt and hatred, then that would have been altruism. He didn’t do anything like that. So lets not accuse him of being an altruist.
"if you meet someone who wants to do good things to you...... RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!"
ReplyDeletewhat definition of altruism requires one to be contemptuous of those receiving help/charity?. only a misanthrope would suggest so
ReplyDeleteperhaps,rand was one.
randist libertarianism puts me off.she lacks the finesse of a mises or the class of a rothbard
@Dysalixic
ReplyDeleteBy thinking someone to be dependent on your charity, you are already showing contempt for him or her.
Because charity assumes that there exist men who can’t take care of themselves, and some elitist (Big Brother type) is needed to come and help this pitiable creature find his way in life.
When you are helping your friend, your relative or someone you really care about, it is not charity. Why? Because you really care for them. You want to contribute to their welfare.
For instance, we have this ridiculous concept of “Balidan” (sacrifice) in our culture. In religious ceremonies people slaughter goats, or offer money, jewellery etc in front of a statue of a God or Goddess. The reason we call these ceremonies balidan is because, these ceremonies entail the sacrifice of a greater value for a lesser value. The statue is just a piece of rock, for which you are giving way a life or something purchased form your hard earned money. Your money could have been better spent in a beer bar.
That is what altruism essentially is – it is a form of balidan – it entails sacrifice of a greater value for a lesser value. If you help a friend or relative, it is not balidan, because your friend and relative is more important to you as compared to your money.
But if you fork out for a worthless scumbag, then that is balidan, because you are sacrificing a greater value (your hard earned money) for a lower value (the scumbag).
Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher and writer every born on this planet. She was perfect in every word that she wrote. I have read the works of so many philosophers, but I have never found such perfection anywhere. It will take another 100 years for human beings to really start understanding her.
we'll need to agree to disagree. rand was a pro patents libertarian.enough for me to classify her as unlibertarian.she provided muscle to the fraud of intellectual property rights.
ReplyDeleteyou probably need to expand your reading shelf if rand dominates it.
the core of libertarian thinking is freedom. 'worthless scumbag' etc are subjective appellations.
the statue is a piece of rock to you.it isnt to the one who is praying fervently.
dont you see, it is all subjective?.human action is all subjective.
Truth and facts are never subjective.
ReplyDeleteWhat is true will remain true irrespective of anyone’s emotions, religious ideas, political pressures, moral posturing.
Just because people are praying fervently, they can't change a statue made from mud and rock into something of value.
2+ 2 = 4 – this is a fact, which can never be subjective. So lets keep emotions and subjectivity out. They mean nothing.
There is no place for emotions or subjectivity in the universe. The beauty of Rand’s works is that she is completely truthful.
She presents her philosophical ideas with the mathematical preciseness that can never be wrong. Her ideas are as true as 2+2=4.
@dsylexic
ReplyDeleteEthics, morals, philosophy, economics are science. And sciences don't run on opinions. You cannot assume them to be subjective and interpret them anyway you want. 2+3=5 is not bacause it's the opinion of some mathematician.
Human actions aren't subjective but are guided by reason and that reason may vary from person to person because the valuations of the needs vary from person to person. If the reason is screwed then so will be the result of your action.
Rand wasn't against private charity. She was against private charity that was aimed at gaining moral high ground (most of the charities are... they try to make those not involved in it, feel guilty). Charity doesn't make great men. If it were so, then we'd all be wishing that someone somewhere get in trouble so that gives us an opportunity to achieve greatness. Greatness doesn't depend upon other people. It depends entirely on you. When you said that morals are subjective you lost the battle. It's because of subjective interpretation of the morals that we're in this mess! It's because of subjective interpretation of economics (otherwise called Keynesian economics) that we're in this hole!!
@greenleaf, Great words.
ReplyDeleteknowledge can only be gained by empirical observation through the senses and by the use of reason to analyze that data.
but people have developed the habit of thinking that their "subjective feelings" or emotions, religious opinions, political muscle power, are going to lead them to true knowledge or facts. This is the root cause of all the problem in the world.
Leftist politics can never be proved through mathematics and logic, because it is a big lie. That is why the leftists are prone to using this so-called "a priori" doctrine of subjective knowledge.
Such leftist ideas have been refuted so many times but still they continue to live on. This is the biggest tragedy of humanity that we keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.
Organized religion is also a big lie,it exists for the sole purpose of robbing men of their freedom.
@Anoop: You are completely mistaken when you say that "leftists are prone to using this so-called "a priori" doctrine of subjective knowledge."
ReplyDeleteA priorism is a tenet of Austrian Economics alone, which is 100 percent libertarian.
To know more about this, study Mises or Rothbard. Widen your knowledge beyond Ayn Rand and her objectivism. I am suggesting this for your own benefit and intellectual development.
@Sauvik, I am surprised to hear that.
ReplyDeleteBecause a priori view of knowledge says that knowledge can be independent of all experience. This means you don’t need your senses to gather data.
The mind can create the universe on its own. How is this possible?
Universe exists outside the mind and not inside.
This a priori view is also dangerous because it frees the mind from the necessary obligation of gathering data to support the theory that it wants to express.
@Anoop: The natural sciences like Physics must rely on observation and experimentation for their theories. The "apriorism" in Austrian Economics relies on "introspection" to discover "laws of thought." Remember, PRAXEOLOGY is the "science of human action." This action is guided by reason - the laws of thought that are part and parcel of the "logical structure of the human mind." I strongly urge you to read - nay, carefully study - Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" - paying special attention to the first 100 pages where he discusses matters pertaining to methodology. I recall having recommended this reading to you long ago - and you said you had begun. What happened? Do read it now - and all will be clear. Crystal clear.
ReplyDelete"Universe exists outside the mind and not inside. "
ReplyDeleteactually,i'd recommend works by V Ramachandran on neuroscience as well.its a fascinating area of study.I like his Phantoms of the brain which explains that the universe is all in your brain/mind.
The positivist libertarians like Milt friedman had no problems with treating economics like any other physical science: using aggregates and sundry math equations to represent human action. we know how all that panned out in predicting the 2008 bust.