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.)