Your Crisis, My Opportunity

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the State-owned intellectual, has concluded his latest column, titled "This moment of crisis," on the Occupy Wall Street movement, with these words:

The terms of the social contract have to be rewritten. Capitalism has to justify itself in terms of social gains, and democracy in terms of empowerment. But at the moment no one quite understands what all of this might mean.

First, there is NOTHING called a "social contract" - because contracts are private law. Individuals sign contracts with each other - like rentals or labour. I did not sign any contract with any MP to outlaw ganja. And anyway, these guys had MGNREGA right to work, right to education and right to food - and this "social contract" - which I did not sign up for - did not work, did it? Note - no right to property!


Second, only the Market can deliver private gains - out of which taxes can be paid for security and roads. Government does not produce "social gains." Government is a cost. The Science of Economics is best defined as the study of market transactions based on money. Government is something else - to do with Law, with Politics, with Public Administration. Since Economics has nothing to do with government, laissez faire is best. Private gains are what we all need, without any State interference. Money must also be private - GOLD.


Third, democracy has NOTHING to do with "empowerment." Democracy means nothing but more and more legislation - which empowers bureaus and bureaucrats. Democracy gives them fat budgets and draconian powers. The voters get screwed. India is very low on "economic freedom." What empowers the voter is LIBERTY. This requires the Inviolability of Property. Put that in a New Constitution, Professor Mehta, and all will be well.

The Fascist Threat Is Real - And Everywhere: Part - 2

In yesterday's post, the first of this series, I discussed Lew Rockwell's speech on the growth of fascism worldwide, and provided my reader with the 8 points he outlined as the signs of this ideology. I also said why India has turned fascist - because Gandhi and Nehru were wrong.


Today, let me begin by quoting Lew again, on why fascism is "invisible":

"It is true that fascism has no overarching theoretical apparatus. There is no grand theorist like Marx. That makes it no less real and distinct as a social, economic, and political system. Fascism also thrives as a distinct style of social and economic management. And it is as much or more of a threat to civilization than full-blown socialism.

This is because its traits are so much a part of life — and have been for so long — that they are nearly invisible to us.

If fascism is invisible to us, it is truly the silent killer. It fastens a huge, violent, lumbering state on the free market that drains its capital and productivity like a deadly parasite on a host. This is why the fascist state has been called the vampire economy. It sucks the economic life out of a nation and brings about a slow death of a once-thriving economy."

We now see why India's "Vampire State" is essentially Fascist - because it stands for NO CLEAR IDEOLOGY. It is a little Gandhian, a little "socialist," a little "capitalist" - a little bit of everything. However, when trade unions as well as syndicates of capitalists combine with the State - then this is what we call "corporatism," which is nothing but fascism. In a free market economy, there is no "producers' policy" - and the consumer is always the king.

Now, politics without any clear ideology cannot be "democratic." A political party must be based on CLEAR IDEAS. We do not find this anywhere in the world today - and certainly not in India. In our country, the Representation of People Act says all political parties must swear by "socialism" - but are the BJP and the Shiv Sena "socialist"? All that is intended by the legislation is that pro-market parties be kept out. The voter loses choice. And "politics" is bereft of those with a clear ideology - a "world view." Their "voice" is not heard. The "battle of ideas" which is democracy does not happen - at least not in India. 

Not that there is much hope in democracy. In the USSA, which is definitely a corporatist State, what with the nationalisation of General Motors, the Republicans and the Democrats are much the same. There is not much difference between George W Bush and Barack Obama on war, on the Fed, and on foreign policy. Ron Paul sticks out like a loner - and do recall that Bastiat's biography is tiled A Man Alone. Ron Paul stands like that. All we can do is hope and pray that he wins.

Similarly, in the UK, where the "mother of all parliaments" sits, they have just announced another round of "quantitative easing" - a pseudonym for printing paper money. Disaster looms. But the last round was under Labour! Corporatism in the UK?

In my "Austrian" view, there is NO REASON why a few people should not go bankrupt. That is far better than inflating a whole nation - and then, the whole world. In a free market, no one can be insured against bankruptcy. And, anyway, that is surely NOT the "role of the State." Repudiation of the "national debt" is the Austrian solution - not "austerity."

But then, the question remains: Why is democratic politics all over the world devoid of clear ideologies, devoid of clear principles? The answer must lie in State education - which has sowed the seeds of confusion in the minds of the people, who are the voters. Yesterday, I suggested an uprising against the RBI. Today, let me suggest another against the Ministry of Education. 

Indian democracy is really peculiar in that there is NO DEBATE. Sonia is quiet, Rahul seldom speaks, chamcha manmohan is always silent, and the opposition - if we can call them that - never take up vital issues. They just play the fool - in parliament and out of it. And as for the TV channels... I would call them "yellow journalism."

In India, officially a "socialist" nation, with a democracy restricted to socialists, our biggest mistake as parents has been to agree to State Education. For twenty years, the Market has proven its efficacy - but the "ideology" of this Market, this "world view," is unable to penetrate the syllabii of schools and colleges. Under these circumstances, voters will remain as confused as the politics. All these so-called political parties will go on with this fascistic system masquerading as democracy, and as a welfare state.

Wake up and smell the Fascism, dudes!

This is a Vampire State, and a Vampire Economy. That is what inflationism is all about. This is the "Reverse Robin Hood" at work. We must wake up the masses to their plight.

Say's Law versus The Marxists

The critical question before a poor nation like India is whether the market and laissez faire capitalism will raise our masses out of poverty - or should we stick to étatism? That is, how will the poor get "according to their needs"? Who will think of their needs, and invest in producing them - entrepreneurs or planners? Is Keynesian funny money financed welfare the way out? Say's Law holds the answer.


Say's Law of Markets says that if any poor person manages to sell his produce or services, he will be possessed of the means to demand non-competing goods on the market. This, as we have already discussed, implies the need for economic freedom.


Further, as also discussed yesterday in Part 2 of this 4-part series on Say's Law, modern capitalism is about mass production by Big Companies for mass consumption - by the poor, as in the case of shampoo in sachets or simple mobile phones. 


Thus, the poor, if possessed of economic freedom, will have the proverbial horn of plenty poured upon them by all the Big Companies. And many of them will be small investors in shares, too. In time, they will have TV sets, motorised personal transport, and what not. They will eat better, drink better, smoke better and live better. This is GUARANTEED if markets are free.


Now, this knocks the bottom out of the "iron law of wages" that Marxists believe in, as do Ricardian-Marxists like Piero Sraffa, whose blind follower teaches Economics at the IAS Academy. According to this law, the wages of workers must remain at subsistence. This is untrue - as proved above, looking at consumption. It is also proved by history - looking at the British working class during the 19th century, the heyday of classical liberalism, free trade and laissez faire. 


Further, if capital accumulation proceeds apace, and per-capita capital invested rises, the wages of all workers will also rise, because each one's productivity will rise. Ricardo erred on this score because he and the classical economists did not look at the consumer; nor did they know anything about "marginal productivity." Once we factor these concepts in, thanks to the advances made in economic theory by Menger and later Austrians, we can be sure that, if the Keynesians and the welfarists are prevented by public opinion from consuming capital, wages will rise along with consumption. Demand will continuously rise.


It must also be noted that if money is gold, inflation will end, and all prices will steadily fall - increasing consumption. The poor will inherit the earth.


So there are the following prescriptions:


1. Economic freedom.
2. Capital accumulation.
3. No funny money.
4. No welfarism.
5. No interventionism.
6. Laissez faire, laissez passer, laissez aller.


On the other side we have centralised economic planning - and Montek!


Now, the real Marxist question is: How will "each have according to his needs"? Montek is busy "measuring poverty" - for which purpose he has sanctioned State funds to hundreds of economists and statisticians, and confusion still prevails. When this confusion is finally settled, some poor people will get rice cheap. The planner will provide the poor with rice.


What is the market and the entrepreneur?


As Mises defined it, "the social function of the entrepreneur is to make provision for the uncertain future." It might rain - and so entrepreneurs invest - "make provision" - in making umbrellas. And shopkeepers stock them. If it rains, you can always get umbrellas. 


Now, smart entrepreneurs are ALWAYS surprising you with goods you never knew you needed. Smart entrepreneurs invest - "make provision" - to research consumer wants, they invest in R&D, and they come out with all kinds of surprises for satisfying unspoken needs. Skype is a great example. Poor people in India go to internet cafes and speak to loved ones abroad using Skype. It is cheap. And there is video. 


Meanwhile, the planner is thinking of rice. He has "made provision" for NOTHING. He is in perpetual DEFICIT. 


Anything to do with the market works - cars, mobile phones, civil aviation... anything. 


On the other hand, anything to do with the State fails - highways, railways, Air India, BSNL, electricity, water, drainage.


I think the choice should be clear.

Away with the Marxists!

Away with the planners!

Away with the socialists!

Away with the Keynesians!

Away with the welfarists!


Away with the protectionists!


Away with the trade unionists!


Away with the interventionists!


Away with immigration controls!

Laissez faire capitalism - for the poor!

PS: The final summing up post can be read here.

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.

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 Capitalism - For All The Good People Of Pondicherry: Part 2

To continue from where I left off yesterday - let me now proceed to state that whatever is called Capital in a truly Capitalist System, is "Private Capital." In other words, private busniessmen decide what to accept as money - and what to store away as money. Thus, Capitalism has NOTHING to do with State-printed irredeemable paper notes.

Second: As I said yesterday, Capitalism has NOTHING to do with Politics. Capitalism is all about Individual Enterprise - and in this, we are Competing with others. Socialism and welfarism is all about Politics, and its corollary, which is Bureaucratic Officialdom.

Third: A City is nothing but Capital. Indeed, a City is mostly FIXED CAPITAL - the private homes, the private shops, and even the city roads and streets are all fixed capital. 

What needs to be done in all Indian cities, including Pondicherry, is that useless government departments need to be closed down, and all the tax revenue invested in roads, streets, drainage and sewage - all CAPITAL. Everything else can be private - like tramways, which Pondicherry needs.

Lastly, because of PROTECTIONISM, many poor people in India own very poor quality CAPITAL GOODS - like auto-rickshaws.

Free second-hand car imports will enable these poor people to earn more by using high quality Capital Goods.

One final point: Capitalism is all about LIBERTY. It is NOT about EQUALITY.

They say:

FREE PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL

AND EQUAL PEOPLE ARE NOT FREE

Thus, the City Mayor and Aldermen who run the honest civic corporation are NOT RULERS - as with socialist dictators.

Rather, the City is ruled in the manner of a friendly CLUB - and all the people are free.

The few public functionaries who take up civic offices are honoured for their public services - but they do NOT make rules and regulations for all to follow.

And ALL businesses are FREE.

There are Laws, of course - and these are "private laws":

Property, Contract and Torts. 

See you all once again, tomorrow.

On Capitalism - For All The Good People Of Pondicherry

Pondicherry is a Capitalist City - shops, shops, and more shops, everywhere. Traders and traders. Even on pushcarts. And today, I would like to tell all the Good People of Pondicherry, which is all these Capitalists, what Capitalism is all about.


The First Thing to know about Capitalism is that it has NOTHING to do with The State, the government, or any political leader and his political party.


On the contrary, Capitalism is all about Individual Enterprise - and, therefore, what really counts in a Capitalistic society is the enterprising quality of The People.


Second: Some geographical advantages may be useful - as in the case of an open access to The Sea. 


Third: Capitalism is the process by which Civilisation is built - and this word has its root in civitas, which means "city." Capitalism means Urban Markets. And these Urban Markets are where shopkeepers keep their shops open for Strangers. This is an Open Society. Open to Friendly and Peaceable Strangers from Anywhere. 


Fourth: The Capitalist Civilisation is built through the Accumulation of Capital. There is no other way than this. Now, it is Very Important to note that "inflationist-welfarism" ERODES CAPITAL. Thus, inflationist-welfarism leads to "de-civilisation." And, anyway, welfarism is NOT Capitalism. 


Whereas Capitalism is about Saving and Investment - which is the Accumulation of Capital - all welfarism is about Consumption, with nothing either saved or invested. The cheap rice, the free schools, the "right to work" MGNREGA - all this is "funny money" being Consumed, not invested. Thus, inflationist-welfarism must invariably lead to "de-civilisation."


Lastly, Capitalism is a JOHN BULL ATTITUDE - so take another look at the illustration accompanying this post. The John Bull Attitude is all about Courage and Valour - and also about Honesty. The John Bull Attitude does NOT tolerate government restrictions on the Freedom to Trade. It was because of this John Bull Attitude that the British went to WAR against China - just to sell their Indian Opium. This is how they won Hong Kong - and these wars are called The Opium Wars. Things are very different in Britain these days, of course. But maybe you Pondicherrians will be motivated to emulate the John Bull Capitalists of old. 


I'll be back tomorrow.

The Trial Of chacha manmohan s gandhi - Part 2: Take #2

Continuing from where I left off yesterday, let me now draw my reader's attention to an excellent and brief essay by Friedrich Hayek that none have ever noticed, titled "Two Kinds of Mind." This essay is to be found in his New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas. In a nutshell, this Nobel laureate says that the "education system" currently in place all over the world - and this applies particularly to India - promotes and encourages those whose minds are good at memorising stuff. The crammers and muggers top the schools, enter the best colleges, and so on. Hayek says that he himself did not possess such a mind. He confesses to having not done too well at school. And he adds that whatever he did cram, for the examinations, he promptly forgot afterwards.

The other kind of mind, Hayek says, is one that assimilates "concepts." This sort of mind is slow. It is no good at memorising. Instead, it slowly and painfully assimilates concepts within it, building one on top of the other. Hayek says that his mind is of this sort. Such minds are NOT encouraged today - and certainly not in India.


Hayek has a chapter in his popular book, The Road to Serfdom, titled "How the Worst Get on Top." The education system is an integral part of this process. Good minds do not rise; the muggers do.

In India, the schools are all meant for muggers and crammers. The "education" youngsters receive is full of "formulae" that must be remembered. This is particularly true of advanced mathematics and statistics. It is also true of physics and chemistry, including organic chemistry. The study of History is NOT conceptual; rather, it requires the mugging up of chronological data: dates. Muggers top the exams. As for the rest, they forget everything they learnt soon after school.

The same continues in college. The study of "Indian Economics" is nothing but the mugging up of useless statistical data. The mathematisation of Economics is likewise. There is zero conceptual learning - that which leads to an "understanding" of the vital issues concerning market exchanges. The higher one climbs up the educational ladder, particularly in Economics, the more bizarre the curriculum becomes, and the more mathematical. And I mean highly advanced mathematics, extremely complex, which requires the memorisation of formulae. 


It is important to note that basic arithmetic is a part of every human being's mental construction. Our language contains numbers - and so we know how to count. In the Market Economy, we need nothing more than Arithmetic: addition, subtraction; and, maybe, division and multiplication. The chairmen of the biggest companies in the world use nothing more to understand their balance sheets. It was Goethe, no one less, who said that double-entry book-keeping was one of the greatest inventions of the human mind. These bastards have given us weirdo maths instead - for all to learn. This is the mathematics of The Devil.

I attended one year of the Master's degree programme at the Delhi School of Economics (and quit!) in 1977-78. We had 8 papers in all; but we also had a Course Zero, titled "Mathematics for Economists." And just the other year, I came across a bright young girl from the DSE - one who had attended some of my privatseminars - who cried on my shoulder and said, "I had come here to study Economics, but all I seem to be studying is mathematics." In my time - and things must surely be the same - the toppers at the DSE were those who took "Six Tricks": that is, six papers in Econometrics  (out of 8). Most of these muggers came from Presidency College, Calcutta. Note that it is easy to "score marks" in mathematics if you get your formulae right. This is how the worst minds get on top.


I also pursued and acquired a Master's degree in Business Economics from Delhi University between 1981-83 with specialisation in International Trade and Transport Economics. Both were taught in mathematics. We in India have NO international trade. All our sea-ports export mineral ores and import nothing. And as for our transport system, it is FUCKED. This is the result of mathematics. To pass the examinations, I even had to take tuition in math! Of course, I have forgotten all that shit.

Engineering students and medical students must, of course, mug formulae. But so do students of Law - and this is particularly harmful. They study "positive law" - that is, the written law - and they mug it all up clause by clause, article by article, Latin maxim by Latin maxim. I have personally seen the room of one such student of Law: he had written all the articles of the Constitution of India, and all the sections of the Indian Penal Code, on the walls of his hostel room, so that he could mug them all. 


It is noteworthy that chacha manmhoan's "human resource destruction minister" is a socialist lawyer. Lawyers are extremely dangerous people - especially when they are in possession of political power. Good lawyers are engaged in "private law." That is, property, contracts and torts. In India, we have NONE of these PROTECTIONS under the law. Even the BJP spokesman, Arun Jaitley, is a "constitutional lawyer." In other words, he possesses political power. He is not in the "enterprise of law." Rather, he has simply mugged up the Constitution of India, much amended, article by article, and beyond that he knows nothing. This is how the "worst get on top" and this is why there is no Justice in socialist India.

The "education system," now in the hands of CONgress lawyer, has always been engaged in the encouragement of "rote-learning." It is a "deliberate device" by which our The State, which controls and monopolises all education, makes the youth dumb and dumber. They memorise everything that our The State wants them to, but they "understand" nothing. The examinations are only a memory test - almost 90 percent of which is unnecessary in a Free Market Economy. In such an economy, where knowledge is "fragmented," people specialise, and only need to know the knowledge relevant to their calling. Just as we save on labour by specialising, so too do we save on knowledge. We do NOT need to know all there is to know. We need to be competent only in one chosen field. Thus, almost 90 percent of schooling is superfluous, and a burden. 


It is particularly shocking that the length of schooling, which was 10 years in the 50s, became 11 years in my time, and is now 12 long years. In the good old days children were only taught the 3R's - that is, reading, writing and arithmetic - after which they were encouraged to "find their calling" and acquire the relevant knowledge, either through apprenticeship, or otherwise. Apprenticeship was paid - and kids earned money, entered the Market Economy early in life, got married early, and so became self-supporting citizens by their mid-teens. Today, most kids cannot afford to marry till their 30s. This is part of the evil designs of our The State, which has delayed marriage deliberately, by legislation, in order to "control the population." It is this State that is the REAL PROBLEM. Not the kids.

Almost all of this protracted education our kids receive from The State is useless. I have simply forgotten all the higher mathematics, trigonometry, algebra, physics and chemistry I studied in school. It is NOT required for all. We need to drastically alter and cut down on education. Instead, our Great Leader, chacha manmohan s gandhi, is conspiring to inject this deadly venom into every innocent child's mind pan-India; and that too, by FORCE.

If a perfect example of the kind of bozos created by this "miseducation system" is required, it is our elite bureaucracy: the IAS-IPS-IFS types. They all cram for a tough examination in their youth - BY MUGGING - and never study anything again. They spend the rest of their lives studying government files. In their "academies" nonsensical Economics is taught - deliberately - thereby dumbing them down even further. They mug up all the "positive law" - including the Constitution of India - and the end result is that nothing from the government works; there is no "functional legitimacy" of our The State; and even the judicial system is a failure. The entire legal system is corrupt. Many judges have been found to be corrupt - in both the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court.


I have myself passed the UPSC examinations to qualify for the "public services" - not once, not twice, but three consecutive times - with Economics and Psychology as my elective subjects. Since then, after over 25 years of daily study - and public writing - I feel that the UPSC examination is nothing but a test of "how well do you know our bullshit." I have lectured twice at the IAS Academy in Mussoorie. After one of my lectures, the then Deputy Director, Yaduvendra Mathur IAS, told me: "We are knowledge-proof." They are also, interestingly, bullet-proof. They have VVIP security. And I have no gun to defend myself against them.

Thus, all the corruption we find in our society is nothing but the "corruption of the minds of the youth." It is for this great crime that chacha must be prosecuted.

This "miseducation system" is designed by our Great Leader, chacha manmohan s gandhi, who is nothing but an "intellectual bodyguard of the House of Nehru," and has served as Chairman of the University Grants Commission. In my book, all schools and colleges in India supported by our The State, or whose curricula are imposed by our The State, must be closed down immediately. This miseducation system will kill every single intellect. It will destroy this bright new generation. Even more importantly, it will WASTE TIME. The years of one's youth are precious. It is then that the mind is keen. As they say, "You cannot teach an old horse new tricks." The flower of Indian youth will be destroyed if our chacha is allowed to pursue his evil plot.

I will continue on this theme tomorrow. Stay tuned for Part 3.