Further Implications Of Say's Law Of Markets: Part 2

So far, I have shown how Say's Law disproves the Keynesians, the protectionists and those who oppose free immigration, like the trade unionists. Today, let us take the arguments a few steps further, and also counter the points raised by Murali yesterday - "legal and cultural objections" to free immigration.


Let us begin with the example I gave yesterday - of the bhel-puri wallah. As Say's Law reveals, once he sells his stock, he is possessed of the means to demand other stuff on the market, except for bhel-puri, of course, which he will not buy. Thus, the sale of bhel-puri creates the demand for all non-competing goods. Our bhel-puri wallah might buy a mobile phone!


There are two important aspects worth noting at this stage: first, who are his customers; and second, the fact that the bhel-puri wallah is really a "poor" man, a very small businessman, often hounded by the cops. I will examine each aspect in turn. 


First: the customers of the bhel-puri wallah are a diverse bunch of people who produce a diverse bunch of goods and services, which they have successfully sold, and which has given them the means to enjoy some bhel-puri. This shows that widespread diversity - a hugely diverse division of labour - is good for all businessmen, because there are then more and more "non-competing" goods and services on sale. In other words, the more non-competing goods on sale, the better it is for all businessmen, the greater the demand for his own produce. 


Thus, Say's Law of Markets allows us the possibility of restating Adam Smith's dictum: "The division of labour is limited by the size of the market." This could be also put in the following form: "The greater the division of labour, the greater the demand for all goods on the market." Thus, free international trade is good - because then we have the "international division of labour."


Second: We noted that the bhel-puri wallah is a very small businessman. Now, especially in a poor country like India, the bulk of the businessmen are of this variety in our cities and towns - very small businessmen. And they are victims of the police. They are hounded, robbed, and their surpluses go in paying bribes. 


Yet, capitalism is all about Big Companies. And these Big Companies are ALL producing for the "mass market." Modern capitalism is nothing but "mass production for mass consumption." Our bhel-puri wallah bought a mobile phone - and he will spend the rest of his life re-charging it. Another example: 70 percent of all shampoo sold in India comes in little 1 rupee sachets - for the poor. This has enormous implications for policy.


This shows that the bulk of demand comes from lesser off people - and, if we want prosperity, every effort must be made to ensure that these people are able to sell whatever goods and services they wish to sell.

There must be economic freedom!

And State Predation on these people must end. This is a very different approach from Keynesian "funny money" welfarism of the kind chacha manmohan s gandhi has instituted, copying the West (where it has failed most spectacularly). 


Thus, either we institute Liberty - by which we will become the world's fastest growing market for mobile phones and other gizmos; or we continue with the charade of a Predatory State pretending to be a Welfare State: free rice for all bullshit.


Murali pointed out that westerners are opposed to "illegal immigration." But what does True Law state on Private Property. Does the US Immigration Department own the United States of America? Or is there, indeed, a "patchwork" of private property? In which case, each private property owner has the full right to decide who should enter his area. If I rent a room in a US hotel, US Immigration should not be able to disallow me entry.


As far as "cultural" objections to free immigration are concerned, these are "tribal mindsets" at work - not the sort of "rugged individualism" capitalism is all about. In any case, they make zero economic sense. Immigrants from different cultures are good for a country precisely because they make the division of labour more and more diverse. In Pondicherry, for example, I met a Frenchman who has been living there for 40 years, running three French restaurants. Such immigration is for bidden in Goa. And in Pondicherry of the old days, there were lots of Vietnamese running their own restaurants - and the city is poorer because they have upped and left. Mexicans in the US have popularised their cuisine. 


There is much people of diverse cultures can successfully sell that is "non-competitive" - like handicrafts and jewellery. Would the USA be a better place with just European food, burger joints and the like? And have you ever tried Vietnamese nouc mam sauce? Isn't Britain better off with all the Indian restaurants? And I did find a Vietnamese restaurant in London! Give me a "cosmopolitan" city any day. And do note that all these diverse restaurants ADD to overall demand - unlike Keynesian funny money.


We in India should therefore consider ourselves fortunate that none of our cities are homogeneous. They are all true "catallaxies." Catallaxies, which are "open trading arenas" - open to strangers, that is - are the "key to an Open Society," something I discussed in a column once. We can either have catallaxies and open societies - based on rugged individualism - or we can have "closed communities." 


Say's Law, as I discussed yesterday, makes a strong case for rugged individualism. Our heterogeneous society is best placed to make such a world, and such an Open Society, happen.


(This series on Say's Law is continued here.)

Further Implications Of Say's Law Of Markets: Take #2

Today is the 130th birth anniversary of Ludwig von Mises. This post is written in his honour. He hated the Keynesians and he upheld Say's Law against their vicious attacks. It is Say's Law that proves the truth of Mises' words below, written for the benefit of the working classes who mistakenly support socialism, unionism and Keynesianism:

In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism.

Murali's comment to my previous post - on Jean Baptiste Say's Law of Markets, and its implications on the current economic crisis, has prompted me to write another post on this vital law, this time explaining some of its other practical implications. In the world of classical liberal political economy, if you were not an adept at Say's Law, you were not considered a political economist worth your salt. It is therefore important to know all about this law of markets - a law that John Maynard Keynes thought he had disproved.


First, let me restate the law:

The sale of X gives rise to the demand for all non-X.

If X sells, it creates the demand for all non-competing goods.

Thus, if a bhel-puri wallah sells his stock, he will be possessed of the means to purchase all other, non-competing goods on the market, except bhel-puri, which of course he will not buy. This disproves the deliberately misleading Keynesian formulation of Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." The supply of bhel-puri does not create the demand for bhel-puri. The supply and sale of all other, non-competing goods and services do.  


Now, the first objection the Keynesian will have to this formulation is that the market tends towards over-production, so without Keynesian monetary boosts, recessions are inevitable. But Say's Law says:

Markets Clear - If Prices Are Not Rigid Downwards 
(due to interventionism).

Thus, ANYTHING PRODUCED will finally be sold - even as junk, if prices are allowed to fall. There is NO OVERPRODUCTION. And there is NO CASE for any monetary boost to "stimulate consumption." 

Indeed, as the Austrian School of economists have proved with theory, and as history has proved today as well, it is this sort of monetary tinkering based on Keynesian "macroeconomics" that is the root cause of all boom-and-bust "business cycles."

Say's Law asserts the obvious: That SAVING and INVESTMENT and INCREASED PRODUCTION lead to INCREASED DEMAND for ALL GOODS AND SERVICES. This is the ONLY WAY to boost demand permanently. 


Keynesian inflationism destroys savings; erodes capital; and thereby reduces production. If at all it boosts consumption, this is during the temporary, heady and short period of the artificial boom, for inevitably the bust must follow, and this is invariably of longer duration than the boom. Further, there have been historical periods of "stagflation," when inflationism failed to boost consumption at all, and economic stagnation combined with high inflation.  

Second: Say's Law proves that all businessmen are best off if they DO NOT COMBINE in protectionist groups. Such groups, if successful, reduce the supply and sales of all non-competing goods - and this reduces demand for all businessmen who do NOT compete with these goods. Thus, whereas Amul Cheese may want protection, it makes no sense for Kingfisher Beer to support this claim, and vice versa. 


Recall that, in our protectionist heydays, there was precious little available in Indian shops - and all businesses suffered. Our markets had zero catallactic energy. 


Thus, Say's Law proves that the business interests of a particular class of traders called "importers" must be supported by all. 


Further, it makes a rock-solid case for "rugged individualism" on the part of all businessmen. It opposes mixing politics - particularly protectionist politics - with business.

The same is true with regard to immigration restrictions. These exist in the West because of a few very powerful trade unions, like the US Automobile Workers' Union. These unions demand visa restrictions because they fear that immigrants will "take away their jobs." 


But the fact remains that all immigrants are NOT competing with autoworkers. Some may come as doctors and nurses. Some may come as dishwashers and construction labourers, restaurant waiters and cooks. And some as software engineers. After all, labour is NOT a homogeneous entity. And there is therefore nothing called "unskilled labour." Further, the demand for labour is always the demand for a particular skill.

If immigration was free, Say's Law proves that overall demand would rise, because as the workers in the non-competing areas managed to sell their services, they would buy whatever they needed from that very same market. I daresay if the USSA had opened up to immigration two years ago, their crisis in the housing market would well nigh be over.

There is more: Because automobile workers' unions are so influential and powerful, the US automobile industry has collapsed. General Motors has been nationalised! Obviously, an important cause of this collapse is the high cost of domestic labour. 

So here is a third and final implication of Say's Law: That all non-competing businessmen gain the most if ALL goods and services are sold at their most competitive price, which is, of course, the LOWEST PRICE.

THIS INCLUDES LABOUR.

Thus, cheap and abundant labour is good for an economy, just as cheap and abundant coal or oil or natural gas or timber is. If labour is cheap, all businesses benefit. All costs are lowered. More goods and services are produced and there is more competition. Thus, workers in all industries gain as consumers - even though their individual wages may be lower. For example: If waiters and cooks can be hired cheap, restaurants will be cheap, there will be more of them - and more workers will be able to eat out.


Cheap labour is beneficial to other, non-competing businesses in another, vital way: consumers have more to spend on the other offerings of the market. Thus, if cars are cheap in the US, the US consumer has money left over to buy beer, jeans, CDs and books. 


This implies that free immigration and cheap labour are GOOD for all American businessmen. Further, there is NO REASON for all workers to join socialist trade unions. Karl Marx's slogan, "Workers of the world - Unite!" makes as little sense as "Businessmen of the World - Unite for Protectionism!"

So, just as Say's Law of Markets suggests RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM as the best policy for businessmen, so also does it suggest the same for workers. Trade unionism and labour market restrictions hurt all workers outside the combination - and thereby hurt all other businesses, and the workers employed in them, too. Workers must compete with each other - just as businessmen must, too. After all, workers in the same factory compete for the next promotion, don't they? As Mises put it: 

Under capitalism everybody is the architect of his own fortune.

Say's "Law of Markets" thus makes a water-tight case for free trade, for free immigration, and for laissez faire. It supports the logic of open borders and the free mobility of capital, goods and labour. It tells us what really boosts demand permanently - which is, increased production of goods and services, based on higher savings and investment. It totally explodes the Keynesian myth that monetary stimulation to boost consumption is good for an economy.

Jean Baptiste Say was known as the "Adam Smith of France." His Law of Markets is as unshakable as the Law of Gravity - despite all the efforts of the evil, lying Keynesians. Truth keeps on working, as Mises said, even if the textbooks contain lies. This law makes a logically indestructible case for free markets and free competition. It makes a solid case for rugged individualism. It opposes politics - which is what the Keynesians, Marxists, protectionists and union bosses have injected overdoses of into our lives, thereby damaging civilisation, even to the point of destroying it.

If you want to learn more about Say's Law, I suggest the late Professor WH Hutt's A Rehabilitation of Say's Law, available from the Mises Institute in PDF, as an e-book, and also as a proper book. Follow this link.


WH Hutt was an outstanding classical liberal; that too, despite being educated at the London School of Economics during the heydays of Fabian Socialism. Hulsmann reports that Hutt, while a student at the LSE, attended a guest lecture by Mises - and then he "broke on through to the other side."


Hutt was born into the British working class - which is why his works against trade unionism are all the more worth studying.


Part 2 of this post can be read here.

We Don't Get Fooled Again!

A Deutsche Bank report just reached me, warning of recession in the USSA. But their analysis is based on "consumer spending" - and this might suggest to many that another "stimulus" is required from the Fed.

This displays ignorance of Say's Law of Markets.

Last night, I watched a BBC programme called "The World Debate" on the current economic crisis, hosted by Nick Gowing. Of the four debaters, three were government people - Christine Lagarde, who heads the IMF; a guy from Obama's economic team; and a dude from the EU in Brussels.


Lagarde spoke of the need for the G-20 to get together and do what they did last time - and I could have cried out loud. That time the G-20 nations inflated their currencies along with the US Fed, which is what "central bank co-ordination" is all about, and which is why the crisis is so widespread today. Nick Gowing, on his part, asked for "more decisive political leadership."

This, too, displays ignorance of Say's Law of Markets.

Today, the Keynesians teach this law as follows:

Supply creates its own demand.

This incorrect formulation of this vital law makes their students believe that "monetary stimuli" create demand.


So, let us think things through: 


The supply of plasma TVs does not create the demand for plasma TVs. Yet, if cars sell, if jeans sell, if shoes sell, and if beer sells - then, and only then, will some people from these latter industries be tempted to buy a plasma TV. Thus, what Say's Law actually means is:

The sale of X gives rise to the demand for all non-X.

If X sells, it creates the demand for all non-competing goods.

So, if you want increased demand for your plasma TVs, don't go to The State asking for a monetary stimulus. Instead, make sure all those who do not compete with you are selling their stuff.


There is another reason for this: If you ask The State to inject a monetary stimulus, all that will happen is another boom-bust cycle - and inflation. The entire economy will be hurt, including yourself, and including all those who do not compete with you.


On the other hand, if you want those industries that do not compete with you to do well, you will NOT favour loose monetary policies based on the false idea of boosting consumption. Rather, you will realise the importance of SAVING and INVESTMENT. You will realise that these businessmen who do not compete with you will need to save and invest - in order to produce. You will favour "capital accumulation" and despise "capital consumption" - which is Keynesian-welfarism-inflationism. You will champion "sound money."  


That is, you will realise that production of goods and services boosts demand - not the production of money. Indeed, not even the production of gold boosts demand. All that happens then is that the price of gold falls - look at the history of Spain and Portugal when they brought gold and silver back to Europe from South America. Spain and Portugal never got rich. And there was inflation throughout Europe. Britain got rich not by digging for gold and silver - but by trading in nutmeg and pepper, and tea, and opium, and tobacco, and sugar, etc.

Increased production of "funny money" is a VERY BAD IDEA.

Thus, Nick Gowing is WRONG when he asks for "more decisive political leadership." The solution does NOT lie in politics. On the contrary. The solution lies in "private money" - and "free banking under law." 


That is: the size, scope, powers and resources of The State and the politicians must be drastically cut down. Money must be given back to the people - to save and invest, to produce. That is how demand can be permanently boosted and boom-bust cycles avoided forever.


Indeed, the current crisis is BECAUSE OF POLITICS. Central banks and their member banks are collapsing. Politics lies at the root of this crisis.


So, let us NOT GET FOOLED. 


Paper notes are just a "money substitute." This is what the "promise to pay the bearer" indicates. Something "hard" is (and always was) real money - GOLD.


So, as the song goes:

I tip my hat to the New Constitution,

Take a bow for the New Revolution,

Smile and grin at the change all around me,

Pick up my guitar and play,

Just like yesterday,

Then I get on my knees and pray:

WE DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

While that covers widespread miseducation in the USSA, Britain and Germany, let us now turn to our own country.


Did you know that both Amartya Sen and chacha manmohan s gandhi were students of Professor Joan Robinson in Cambridge - who was Keynes' right-hand man, and who made it her "mission to destroy Say's Law"? It was Joan Robinson who cleverly coined the "supply creates its own demand" nonsense.


And, as I wrote the other day:

Without Sound Money - what is the State 

but a band of robbers?

That should take care of Kapil Sibal's "(mis)education."


Let us now turn to Palaniappan Chidambaram, the Central State Police Minister, whose name has cropped up in the 2G scam. There is a report written by the Political Editor of The Sunday Guardian that says that in the Nira Radia tapes, A Raja told Radia that "PC got a lot of money."


The Central State's Police Minister is corrupt?


And he has been police minister since the 1980s - and there have been no police reforms. Policing has just got worse. Now, road deaths total over 2,00,000 per annum - and the police don't even possess the "knowledge" to fix things.


We must ABOLISH THIS STATE. And replace it with honest civic corporations - one in each city and town.


A Second Republic!


A Republic WITHOUT any police - like the England of old, before Peel set up the Bobby. Like India of the Company, before the Crown passed the Indian Police Act in 1861.


TORTS - which are "crimes against the individual" and for which financial compensation must be paid by the tortfeasor to the victim: this will be better than any "criminal justice system." Anyway, ours doesn't work. And the minister is corrupt. Indeed, the Entire System is Corrupt.


So let us vow to throw the whole thing out, beginning with the Central Bank, and ending with the State Police.


Liberty! Property! Justice! The Pursuit of Happiness, Subjectively Defined!

WE DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

(This turned out to be a 5-part series on Say's Law. The next post can be read here.)

Only Liberty And Property, Dudes

I found a strange article - actually a sort of book review - in Mint the other day, with the strange title:

More literacy + More per capita income= More democracy

And the sub-title read:

Whether education promotes democracy or the causality is the other way around, has been the subject of a heated debate, with some economists saying that institutions are the prime engine of growth, while others view human capital as the root cause of economic development

And, at the bottom, was the author, 

Manas Chakravarty's, conclusion:

Developing countries in East Asia, for instance, slowly became more democratic as they became richer. That could hold true for China as well. And for India, the success of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the concomitant higher levels of literacy, together with higher per capita income, will lead to a more meaningful participation in our democracy.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Note that the author never mentions the sweet word "Liberty." Nor that other sweet word "Property." We have neither - but we have "democracy." It is democratic legislation that banned 70,000 dancing girls in Bombay - and put some 5,00,000 musicians, bartenders, waiters, bouncers and cooks out of work. It is subordinate legislation that does not permit anyone to open a simple beer bar in Nude Elly. 


Yet, we are told we have The Vote. But you cannot eat The Vote; nor can you feed it to your family. Liberty is what you need - not The Vote.


And as for State Education: There are lots of people who could survive very well without formal education - like dancing girls and musicians.


There are lots of people who know something valuable that no formal education can teach them - like the tribals who "know" how to distil mahua from a jungle flower of the same name. They need Liberty.


Democracy is "the god that failed" - and this is clear when we look at Europe and the USSA today. With a "time preference" of just five years, democratic rulers "loot and scoot." Lord Keynes has given them the ability to do so even better. And their "education" (and their "intellectuals") have just endorsed Keynesian and socialist myths. 


If you read Hoppe's book, you will find a clear demonstration of the fact that "traditional monarchies" were better than democracy - because then, the ruler was "under the law," the people had liberty as well as property, and the ruler's time horizon was limitless, because his son would take over after he died, and so he had the desire to keep on increasing the capital value of his State. 


Under democracy, all we have, internationally, is "capital consumption" - which is the road to "de-civilisation." Just wait a few months, and you will realise how The Vote has destroyed the world. Especially "western civilisation." 


Destroyed.


Apart from Liberty, people need the inviolable right to Property - because this unlocks the "mystery of capital." As Hernando de Soto has shown, through field  studies all over the Third World, from Bangladesh to Egypt, poor people own property in these "poor nations" - property worth trillions - but possess no "titles." This bars them from Capitalism. They remain poor - forever. They live in shantytowns.


The sort of book that Manas Chakravarty has reviewed for his column is a good example of the kind of "empirical research" the subject of Economics does NOT need. There is no theoretical proposition in this subject that can be either established or proved by such research. The theories of Economics are best thought through by the economist in an armchair - and then used to confirm reality in the outside world. 


The Science of Economics consists of "looking out from within the consciousness." The importance of Liberty and Property are embedded within our consciousness. 


It is tragic that a columnist who purports to talk "Simply Economics" loses sight of his objective, gets entangled in pointless "empirical research," and then arrives at conclusions that support the ambitions of our Predatory State. 


So I go beyond what I said the other day:

Our poor people need Liberty and Property - and Nothing Else. 

They do NOT need Welfare.

They do NOT need Miseducation.

They do NOT need The Vote.

PS: The picture above is of John Locke, who wrote, in 1691, "where there is no Property, there is no Justice."

On The Pope... And Black Money: Take #2

Pope Benedict XVI's address before the German parliament has attracted wide attention because at the outset he quoted St. Augustine's dictum:

"Without justice – what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?"

In our own country, all the fuss is about "black money" - or money that has evaded the tax-collector. The matter has now been referred to a specially constituted board of bureaucrats - but the news report says they are "dragging their feet." So, the issue is now before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), says another report.


But, tell you me, is not all the inflation, stock-market crash, the crises over the Euro and the US dollar all about "funny money"? Will inflation be over, will these crises be resolved for our country, if all this "black money" is unearthed and "brought back" to the Exchequer? Certainly not!

We all need Sound Money - Gold.

And St. Augustine wrote, in his City of God:

"Without justice – what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?"

So, now that black money is before the CJI, think about Ashok Jain, KL Chugh and Rajan Pillai - how they were humiliated over black money and how two of them died. The "positive law" was FERA - the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.


Now, as any Misesian knows, foreign exchange regulation is meant to "expropriate wealth." There is nothing "just" about such a positive law. In my book, if the central banker cannot convert his note into money desired by the bearer, it is the central banker who ought to be in prison: a debtors' prison. Savvy?


After all, the "promise to pay" on the note, signed by the central banker, is a SOLEMN CONTRACT - a contract the central banker is refusing to abide by.


And St. Augustine wrote, in his City of God:

"Without justice – what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?"

Of course, FERA was INJUSTICE writ large, so we could rephrase the above as follows:

Without Sound Money -  what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?

It is at this point that Murray Rothbard must be quoted, for in his Ethics of Liberty he wrote what would happen to the State if this were to be the case:

For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang. Hence the necessity of the State’s employment of ideologists; and hence the necessity of the State’s age-old alliance with the Court Intellectuals who weave the apologia for State rule.

This "black money" nonsense is the work of State-employed ideologists, judges and bureaucrats. We, the people, must focus on the "funny money" that is the root cause of our problems.


The person with black money has only evaded taxation - which is "moral" in a nation where the State "consumes capital" and there are no good roads or highways, and 200,000 people are killed in traffic accidents every year, and many more seriously injured.


On the other hand, the funny money man is an issuer of dud currency - a "counterfeiter," as I have explained in this brief column. Throughout history, counterfeiting always attracted the death penalty.


However, the Pope did a lot more in his address: he actually challenged "legal positivism" and even quoted Hans Kelsen, who was Hayek's professor of law, and a very important German legal positivist. 


Hayek of the Law, Legislation & Liberty volumes was not Hans Kelsen's student; rather, he had been strongly influenced by Bruno Leoni, whose Freedom and the Law is a must read.


After smashing legal positivism (while maintaining that positivism is essential for the natural sciences) the Pope said:

Where positivist reason dominates the field to the exclusion of all else – and that is broadly the case in our public mindset – then the classical sources of knowledge for ethics and law are excluded. This is a dramatic situation which affects everyone, and on which a public debate is necessary. Indeed, an essential goal of this address is to issue an urgent invitation to launch one.

I echo that sentiment. Down with legal positivism. Down with positivism in the sciences of human action - like Economics.

The God That Failed: Take #2

Democracy is also a form of worship. 

It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.

—H. L. Mencken

Democracy has been the recipient of many an abuse - perhaps none greater than PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores, though that is an insult to whores, who, unlike parliaments, do not fuck you by force.

Today, this very same parliament has been heaped with abuse in this LRC post by Laurence Vance titled "The US Congress Contains the Biggest Bunch of Buffoons, Idiots and Morons in the World." 

The subject matter pertains to Google, because of whom we all enjoy so many free facilities, and who are now  being accused of being "monopolistic and violating anti-trust laws." Well, if you download Google Chrome, before installation you have a choice of three search engines. Monopolistic?

Anyway, which libertarian believes in busting monopolies by anti-trust legislation and competition commissions? What did MRTPC ever achieve in socialist India? And, as I discussed yesterday, it is State-owned Air India and BSNL that offer the private sector "unfair competition."

What is required is openness to entry by new players - which is how Microsoft's Windows Explorer got busted by Mozilla and Google Chrome.

Yes. The US Congress is nuts. And, incidentally, they are very corrupt as well.

Let us turn our attention to UK. Here is how a post from Andy Duncan's "The God That Failed" blog begins:

It would seem that as we enter the ‘idiot’ season, in which various British government halfwits (a.k.a. politicians) have pontificated on the need for more ‘stimulus’ – because previous attempts at ‘stimulus’ have been so successful – this country is standing at the edge of an abyss of debt collapse.

When will we learn that those who rule us are morons? 

Do read my comment at the bottom - about a moron I saw on BBC, which is "State-owned broadcasting." Like Pravda. Doordarshan. All India Radio. Ha ha. Poor Brits. "Thought Control" writ large.


And there is worse: The very next post says "UK QE to resume in October." Well, Keynes was English, so whaddya expect? Morons.



And now, let us turn to our morons, "socialist planners." Our Great Leader, the socialist-welfarist-democrat, chacha manmohan s gandhi, is concurrently Chairman of the Planning Commission, and this Very Important Department of our The State has got its knickers in a twist over "measuring poverty." Is 26 rupees a day poor, or is 32 rupees? And what about inflation, etc.? 


The fuss is all about welfare - the "right to food," by which this The State will mail parcels of uncooked grain to the well-measured poor, while street vendors who sell cheap cooked food are preyed upon by both policemen as well as municipal functionaries.

The Predatory State pretending to be a Welfare State.

I suggest these people look at the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. India is ranked 87/178 with Albania, Jamaica, and Liberia, with a score of 3.3 out of 10!


And I suggest my readers read the World Economic Freedom Index, from the Heritage Foundation, which finds India "mostly unfree," ranked 124/179, below Pakistan, Malawi, Tonga and Benin!


Also, read this analysis of the Economic Freedom Index from the Mises Institute. They are also offering an online course on the importance of Economic Freedom.


Democracy: The God That Failed; The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a MUST READ. Buy it in India here.


Unfortunately, Hoppe does not write much about the "Natural Order": for that, read my eponymously titled book available as a free download on the right-hand bar.

Natural Liberty

Natural Order

Natural Justice