The minister says that for India’s sake people should leave their villages and move to the cities. He’s a Harvard man. He wants speed. And numbers. Five hundred million migrants, he thinks, would make a good business model.
She then proceeds to demolish the minister. And I thought it was Ms. Roy who once wrote, "India does not live in her villages; she dies in her villages."
Frankly, I am on the side of the minister on rural-urban migration. 500 million such migrants is a great idea - and we could easily be a nation of 1000 cities then, instead of just five. The USSA has 350 million in 200 cities. Very few Americans - less than 2 percent - live on farms. If we did the same in India, farm labourers would be rich - because their wages would shoot up when the majority of them shift to urban areas and out of agriculture. And farms would be mechanised - hence, more productive, too.
In either case, whether Ms. Roy likes it or not, Indian villagers have been migrating to cities in droves - just look at the slums and the overcrowding. Why do they do that? The only answer: these villagers are better off in crowded cities than in the vacant countryside; further, they know their fortunes improve because of the greater division of labour in the cities. Allow me to explain this point in some detail, beginning with an example that came to mind the other day.
I saw a construction labourer the other day, and his shirt was dirty and torn. My question: Why does this man not sit with a charkha, spin some yarn, weave some cloth, and make himself a new shirt? Why does he work at construction instead - that too, building a house for someone else? The only answer: He sees his work as a faster and better way to obtain not only a shirt, but all else that he needs to survive. This is the magic of the division of labour - which is specialisation and not self-sufficiency. Each human mind is capable of realising this - we all possess a "sense of gain."
As Mises put it (and this was quoted in an earlier post, too):
The extent of the division of labour is limited by the size of The Market. A chai shop in a tiny, remote village may not be able to yield much profit. You cannot be a taxi-driver, receptionist, plumber or electrician in a sleepy village. It is for this reason, to participate in the greater division of labour possible there, that people migrate to cities. They are attracted by The Market; they smell economic gain. In the cities, they "become" what they want to be: actor, dancer, musician, writer... whatever. No one is "self-sufficient." All are specialised. It is in order to specialise that people move to cities.
There is no reason why India should remain a nation of just 5 big cities - and not 1000. There is enough land, for sure. With unilateral free trade, just the twin coasts could host 100 new cities. Add to that their satellite towns - and we are looking at an Indyeah that is predominantly urban - and rich. With so many new cities and towns, urban overcrowding would end. With good transport connections - roads, railways, tramways, the automobile - there would be enough urban space for all, because transportation adds to the supply of urban land. We must therefore dream a new dream: not the Gandhian dream of "self-sufficient village republics," but an Indyeah of thousands of free trading and self-governing cities and towns - that is, an Indyeah fully incorporated into the "international division of labour."
The division of labour is elaborated upon in the very first chapter of The Wealth of Nations - but it is Mises who put it best when he wrote:
Arundhati Roy needs to study some basic Economics. I am confident that, if she does so, she will eventually come on to the right side in the State-Market Debate. Today, she is anti-State - and anti-Market, too. But there is no Third Way! It can be either the State or the Market; either coercion or voluntarism; either Force or Liberty.
The Welfare State is what has brought Europe and the USSA down. In India, where the vast majority are poor, welfarism cannot work. A big Welfare State printing money, borrowing, and taxing us to the bone will only wipe out Capital - which needs to be invested in real businesses and in physical infrastructure like roads if the poor are to benefit. In my view, the poor need Liberty, Property, Free Trade, Urbanisation and Sound Money. Welfarism funded by inflationism will destroy them. I hope all those who have the true interests of the poor at heart realise this.
I saw a construction labourer the other day, and his shirt was dirty and torn. My question: Why does this man not sit with a charkha, spin some yarn, weave some cloth, and make himself a new shirt? Why does he work at construction instead - that too, building a house for someone else? The only answer: He sees his work as a faster and better way to obtain not only a shirt, but all else that he needs to survive. This is the magic of the division of labour - which is specialisation and not self-sufficiency. Each human mind is capable of realising this - we all possess a "sense of gain."
As Mises put it (and this was quoted in an earlier post, too):
The fundamental facts that brought about cooperation, society and civilisation and transformed the animal man into a human being are the facts that work performed under the division of labour is more productive than isolated work and that man's reason is capable of recognising this truth.
The extent of the division of labour is limited by the size of The Market. A chai shop in a tiny, remote village may not be able to yield much profit. You cannot be a taxi-driver, receptionist, plumber or electrician in a sleepy village. It is for this reason, to participate in the greater division of labour possible there, that people migrate to cities. They are attracted by The Market; they smell economic gain. In the cities, they "become" what they want to be: actor, dancer, musician, writer... whatever. No one is "self-sufficient." All are specialised. It is in order to specialise that people move to cities.
There is no reason why India should remain a nation of just 5 big cities - and not 1000. There is enough land, for sure. With unilateral free trade, just the twin coasts could host 100 new cities. Add to that their satellite towns - and we are looking at an Indyeah that is predominantly urban - and rich. With so many new cities and towns, urban overcrowding would end. With good transport connections - roads, railways, tramways, the automobile - there would be enough urban space for all, because transportation adds to the supply of urban land. We must therefore dream a new dream: not the Gandhian dream of "self-sufficient village republics," but an Indyeah of thousands of free trading and self-governing cities and towns - that is, an Indyeah fully incorporated into the "international division of labour."
The division of labour is elaborated upon in the very first chapter of The Wealth of Nations - but it is Mises who put it best when he wrote:
The principle of the division of labour is one of the great basic principles of cosmic becoming and evolutionary change.... Human society is an intellectual and spiritual phenomenon. It is the outcome of a purposeful utilization of a universal law determining cosmic becoming, viz., the higher productivity of the division of labour.
Arundhati Roy needs to study some basic Economics. I am confident that, if she does so, she will eventually come on to the right side in the State-Market Debate. Today, she is anti-State - and anti-Market, too. But there is no Third Way! It can be either the State or the Market; either coercion or voluntarism; either Force or Liberty.
The Welfare State is what has brought Europe and the USSA down. In India, where the vast majority are poor, welfarism cannot work. A big Welfare State printing money, borrowing, and taxing us to the bone will only wipe out Capital - which needs to be invested in real businesses and in physical infrastructure like roads if the poor are to benefit. In my view, the poor need Liberty, Property, Free Trade, Urbanisation and Sound Money. Welfarism funded by inflationism will destroy them. I hope all those who have the true interests of the poor at heart realise this.
It is wrong to say that Arundhati Roy is anti-State: she is as much a statist as any leftie could get. Why she writes bad things about the Indian state is because, it is not upto her standards - she sees it as too capitalistic, too 'neo-liberal' and the like. She is for more state intervention in every aspect of peoples' lives. The Indian state is not socialistic enough for her!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sauvik, for writing for so many years..I've been a frequent reader.
ReplyDeleteDo you really see no future for India under the current dispensation? The coming recession in the US and Europe will destroy us too?